Jones v. Warden of Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that had been dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or properly support an in forma pauperis motion. The court denied the petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that the dismissal was not debatable or incorrect.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Certificate of Appealability“The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability in this case because jurists of reason would not find the dismissal for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement to be debatable or incorrect.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Slack v. McDaniel. The underlying dismissal was based on the petitioner's failure to comply with the mandatory filing fee requirement or properly support an IFP motion, which is a procedural prerequisite to the court's jurisdiction. Jurists of reason would not find this procedural dismissal debatable, as the petitioner failed to meet the clear requirements of the Rules Governing § 2254 and Local Rule 3.2. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly applies the correct legal standard from Slack v. McDaniel to the procedural facts of the case. It correctly identifies that the dismissal was based on a failure to meet a mandatory filing requirement, which is not a debatable procedural ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIJAH WAYNE JONES, Case No.: 3:25-cv-0960-AJB-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE 13 v. OF APPEALABILITY 14 WARDEN OF R.J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 On April 16, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. §2254, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See ECF Nos. 20 1, 2. On April 22, 2025, this Court denied the IFP motion because it lacked the required 21 support, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 3 (citing Rules 22 Governing § 2254, Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254; Local Rule 3.2). The Court also 23 notified Petitioner he could have his case reopened by either paying the $5.00 filing fee or 24 submitting a properly supported IFP motion by June 2, 2025. Id. 25 Petitioner did not respond to the Court’s order. Instead, on May 29, 2025, he filed a 26 Notice of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 4. 27 The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case to this Court for the limited purpose of 28 determining whether a certificate of appealability is appropriate. See ECF No. 5. 1 A certificate of appealability is appropriate when “jurists of reason would find it 2 || debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right [or] 3 || that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 4 || procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court DENIES a 5 || certificate of appealability in this case because jurists of reason would not find the dismissal 6 || for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement to be debatable or incorrect. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: August 4, 2025 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28