Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission

9th Cir.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Citations: 114 F.3d 878, 97 Daily Journal DAR 7042, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13013, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4210, 1997 WL 292312

Decision Date: 6/4/1997

Docket Number: No. 97-55164

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878, 97 Daily Journal DAR 7042, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13013, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4210, 1997 WL 292312 (9th Cir. 1997)

More Cases: 9th Cir. decisions from 1997

Stephen Charles FORDE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee.

Judges

Before: FLETCHER, REINHARDT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Attorneys

Stephen Charles Forde, Los Angeles, CA, pro se, for petitioner-appellant.
Richard E. Drooyan, Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for respondent-appellee.

majority

The district court denied petitioner Stephen Charles Forde’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Forde filed a notice of appeal which the district court construed as a request for a certificate of appealability (COA). The district court denied the request for a COA and referred the request to this court.

We must decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 2253, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), requires that Forde receive a COA before we may hear his appeal. The new section 2253(c)(1) provides the following:

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).

The plain language of section 2253(c)(1) does not require a COA here because this is an appeal from an order denying a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. See Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996). Accordingly, the COA request is denied as unnecessary.

The briefing schedule established previously shall remain in effect.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.