(PC) Hunter v. Jones ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID SAMPSON HUNTER, No. 2:19-cv-2340-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT JONES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 5, 2020, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 18 recommendations and dismissed plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. ECF No. 16. Movant has filed a 19 notice of appeal, ECF No. 19, and a motion for a certificate of appealability, ECF No. 18.1 20 Plaintiff does not need a certificate of appealability to appeal this case. The 21 certificate of appealability requirement only applies to claims for habeas corpus relief arising 22 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); see also Hulihan v. Reg’l Transp. 23 Comm’n of S. Nevada, No. 2:09-CV-01096-ECR, 2012 WL 3135681, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 24 2012); Dalluge v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. C11–5037RBL, 2011 WL 1675407, at *1 (W.D. 25 Wash. May 4, 2011) (“As this case was brought pursuant to 42 U. S.C. § 1983, there is no 26 requirement for a certificate of appealability.”); Jenkins v. Caplan, No. C 02–5603 RMW (PR), 27 1 The court construes defendant’s filing titled “objections to findings and 28 recommendations” as a request for a certificate of appealability. 1 2010 WL 3057410, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2010) (“[A] Certificate of Appealability is 2 inapplicable to a § 1983 action.”). Plaintiff's request for a certificate of appealability, ECF No. 3 18, is therefore DENIED as moot. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: June 2, 2020. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28