Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Juan Carlos Chimborazo Bunay v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al. E.D. Cal.
- 2026Dustin Joseph v. Warden, FCI-Mendota E.D. Cal.
- 2026Zakinyan S.D. Cal.
- 2025(HC) Powers v. Warden E.D. Cal.
- 2025(HC) Estall v. Doerer E.D. Cal.
- 2025Velasquez v. Gunther D. Ariz.
- 2025Jacob Balli v. Warden, FCI-Mendota E.D. Cal.
- 2025Albert Tashchian v. Warden of Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al. E.D. Cal.
- 2025Wofford E.D. Cal.
- 2025Doerer E.D. Cal.
Cites 2 statutes
- Power to grant writ
- Appeal
Cites 2 cases
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
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.
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.