(PC) Williams v. Newsom ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENNY WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:19-cv-02229-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN APPLICATION FOR 13 v. CERTIFICATION OF APPEALABILITY 14 GAVIN NEWSOME, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking an application for certification of 19 appealability. ECF No. 67. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as unnecessary because his case does not 20 require a certificate of appealability. The requirement for a certificate of appealability only 21 applies to claims for habeas corpus relief arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255. See Fed. R. 22 App. P. 22(b); see also Jenkins v. Caplan, No. C 02-5603 RMW (PR), 2010 WL 3057410, at *1 23 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2010) (“[A] Certificate of Appealability is inapplicable to a § 1983 action.”); 24 Moore v. Hindmarch, No. CV 09-1461-PHX-GMS (JRI), 2010 WL 3283567, at *1 (D. Ariz. 25 Aug. 18, 2010) (“[A] certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the dismissal and entry 26 of judgment in a pro se civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”). 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ September 14, 2022 Q_—_—. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28