Gomez v. Sullivan

District Court, N.D. California·Decided December 18, 2020·No. 3:19-cv-06129·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ELROY PEDRO GOMEZ, Case No. 19-cv-06129-SI

8 Petitioner, ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO 9 v. FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 10 WILLIAM “JOE” SULLIVAN, APPEALABILITY 11 Respondent. Re: Dkt. Nos. 22, 23

12 13 The pro se petitioner has filed a request for an extension of the deadline to file a notice of 14 appeal from the October 16, 2020 order denying petition for writ of habeas corpus. The request is 15 GRANTED. Docket Nos. 22, 23. Petitioner must file a notice of appeal from that order no later 16 than fourteen days from the date of this order. That deadline will not be extended for any reason. 17 See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C). 18 The pro se petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Docket Nos. 19 22, 23. A certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c), will not issue as to the October 16, 20 2020 order denying petition for writ of habeas corpus because this is not a case in which “reasonable 21 jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” 22 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue as to the 23 October 20, 2020 order denying appointment of counsel because this is not a case in which “jurists 24 of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 25 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 26 correct in its procedural [ruling]” in that order. Id. The denial of the certificate of appealability is 27 without prejudice to petitioner seeking a certificate from the United States Court of Appeals for the 1 The record is somewhat confused as to whether attorney Such is now representing petitioner 2 || or petitioner is proceeding pro se. Compare Docket No. 18 (attorney Such listed as counsel) with 3 Docket Nos. 22 and 23 (documents filed pro se). Out of an abundance of caution, the clerk will 4 send a copy of this order to both petitioner (in prison) and attorney Such, as well as to counsel for 5 respondent. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: December 18, 2020 Site WU tee 8 SUSAN ILLSTON 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gomez v. Sullivan, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Gomez v. Sullivan (Gomez v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)