(HC) Plaza-Uzeta v. Taylor

Opinion

RUBEN PLAZA-UZETA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01773-HBK (HC) Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING CLARIFICATION TO LIMITED EXTENT1 v. (Doc. No. 24) TAYLOR, FCI Mendota Warden, Respondent. Before the Court is Petitioner’s “motion for clarification of judgment.” (Doc. No. 24, “Motion”). Petitioner Ruben Plaza-Uzeta is a federal prisoner who initiated this action by filing a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). On October 15, 2024, the undersigned granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Petition, the Petition was dismissed, and judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. Nos. 19-20). On October 29, 2024, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, and the Appeal was processed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the same day. (Doc. Nos. 21-22). On January 13, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant Motion requesting clarification as to whether a certificate of appealability “would be required on appeal.” (Doc. No. 24). In support of the Motion, Petitioner attaches a November 14, 2024 “docketing notice” from the Ninth Circuit indicating that “[n]o 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 18). briefing schedule will be set until the Ninth Circuit and/or the district court determines whether a certificate of appealability should issue.” (Jd. at 24). As an initial matter, the Court has not received any direction from the Ninth Circuit to issue a decision as to whether a certificate of appealability should issue. (See docket). A review of the docket in the Ninth Circuit similarly reveals no instruction to this Court regarding the issuance of a certificate of appealability. See Plaza-Uzeta v. Taylor, Case No. 24-6902.” Regardless, as a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to proceed with his appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) does not require federal prisoners bringing § 2241 petitions to obtain a COA in order to appeal, unless the § 2241 petition “is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 petition.”’). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s motion for clarification (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED to the extent described herein and otherwise DENIED. '© Dated: _ April 4, 2025 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

* The Court takes judicial notice of the docket of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, available on PACER. See United States v. Wilson, 631F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 2980) (court may take judicial notice of court records).