Calderon v. Covello
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-03881
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Calderon v. Covello, Judge Freeman denied appeal-fee and counsel requests and other motions because jurisdiction had shifted to the appeals court.
Juan Carlos Calderon’s appeal-related requests were denied or redirected to the Court of Appeals; the underlying habeas dismissal was not reconsidered in this order.
What happened
Juan Carlos Calderon’s case against Patrick Covello is a habeas case involving Calderon’s appeal from an earlier dismissal of his petition.
After Calderon filed a notice of appeal, he asked to amend it, proceed without paying the appeal fee, receive a lawyer for the appeal, obtain general equitable relief, and pause the case. The district court said it no longer had authority over matters involved in the appeal.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion to amend, the request for equitable relief, and the request to stay for lack of jurisdiction. She denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal fee and denied appointment of appellate counsel without prejudice, allowing Calderon to renew those requests in the appeals court.
The detailed version
- Calderon v. Covello · No. 5:22-cv-03881
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 13, 2023
Background
This is a federal habeas case brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 22, 2023, the court had granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a legally cognizable claim and lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and entered judgment. Calderon then filed a notice of appeal on September 25, 2023.
Motions
After filing the notice of appeal, Calderon filed four motions: a motion to amend the notice of appeal; a motion for permission to appeal without paying the filing fee and for appointment of counsel; a motion for “general equitable relief”; and a motion to stay pending a decision on that equitable-relief request.
Ruling
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal generally removes the district court’s authority over the matters being appealed. It therefore denied Calderon’s motion to amend the notice of appeal, motion for “general equitable relief,” and motion for a stay for lack of jurisdiction. The court stated that Calderon should file those motions in the Court of Appeals.
The court denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal. It relied on its earlier determination that no reasonable jurist would find the district court’s procedural ruling debatable and concluded that the appeal was not being taken in good faith. The court also denied the motion for appointment of counsel on appeal without prejudice to filing that motion before the Ninth Circuit. The order terminated Docket Nos. 36, 37, 38, and 39.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.