Arellano v. Paramo
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — On November 2, 27 28 1 || 2021, the Clerk’s Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Nint
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Petitioner's Notice of Appeal regarding the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to vacate a prior judgment. The court denied the Petitioner's request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA).
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Denial of Certificate of Appealability (COA) regarding the denial of the Rule 60(b) Motion.“The Certificate of Appealability as to ECF No. 191 is denied.” | substantial evidence | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for issuing a COA in a habeas corpus case, which requires a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment debatable or wrong, specifically noting the lack of evidence supporting a claim of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Rule 60(b). |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly applies the correct legal standard for a Certificate of Appealability in a habeas case. It cites the relevant statutes and binding precedent (Slack, Beaty, Pham) and applies them to the specific facts (lack of evidence for Rule 60(b) grounds). The reasoning is sufficient to support the denial.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ARELLANO, Case No.: 17-cv-0354-WQH-MDD Petitioner, 12 ORDER v. 13 14 DANIEL PARAMO, Respondent. 15 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 On February 21, 2017, Petitioner Raul Arellano, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 18 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF. No. 1). On 19 October 26, 2018, this Court entered an Amended Judgment in this matter, granting the 20 Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition and certifying for appeal grounds one and 21 two. (ECF No. 84). Petitioner appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed 22 Petitioner’s appeal for untimely filing and lack of jurisdiction on June 27, 2019. (ECF No. 23 98). On March 18, 2021, Petitioner filed a 60(b) Motion. (ECF No. 189). On April 26, 24 2021, this Court issued a minute entry denying Petitioner’s 60(b) Motion. (ECF No. 191). 25 On October 29, 2021, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal as to this Court’s April 26, 26 2021 minute entry denying Petitioner’s 60(b) Motion. (ECF No. 201). On November 2, 27 28 1 || 2021, the Clerk’s Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit □□□□□ 2 ||a letter that stated: 3 Dear Appellant ‘ The Clerk's Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 5 Circuit has received a copy of your notice of appeal and/or request for a 6 certificate of appealability. 7 A briefing schedule will not be set until the district court and, if necessary, this court determine whether a certificate of appealability should issue. ? (ECF No. 202 at 1 (emphasis omitted)). 10 Rule 11 of the Rules Following 28 U.S.C. § 2254 requires district courts to “issue or I deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 2 Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A certificate of appealability will issue when the petitioner 3 makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 4 Pham y. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir. 2005). A “substantial showing” requires a demonstration that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 16 constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). This Court concludes that Petitioner has not made the required showing. Petitioner 19 has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2253; Pham, 400 F.3d at 742. Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to support a1 a claim that “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” occurred in this case or 22 “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Certificate of Appealability as to ECF No. 191 is denied.
2 Dated: November 4, 2021 BE: eg Z A a 26 Hon, William Q. Hayes 27 United States District Court 28