1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 QUINDELL FORD, Case No. 1:22-cv-1327 JLT CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 13 v. (Doc. 26) 14 B.M. TRATE, Clerk of the Court to File with Court of Appeals 15 Respondent. Case No.: 24-1343 16

17 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded this action for the limited 18 purpose of determining whether to grant or deny a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 26.) For the 19 reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 20 I. Background 21 Quindell Ford is a federal prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 22 pursuant to

. (Doc. 1.) The Court found Petitioner did not qualify for § 2241’s 23 “escape hatch” or “savings clause,” which provides that “[a] federal prisoner may file a habeas petition 24 under § 2241 to challenge the legality of a sentence when the prisoner's remedy under § 2255 is 25 inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Harrison v. Ollison,

, 959 26 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, the Court found Petitioner filed an 27 authorized successive § 2255 petition, currently pending before his sentencing court (the District of 28 Maryland) and, thus, could not demonstrate he lacked an “unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting 1 his habeas claims. (See Doc. 17 at 2, citing Stephens v. Herrera,

(9th Cir. 2006).) 2 Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and directed the Clerk of Court to close this case. (Id at 3.) 3 On June 8, 2023, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Alter and Amend” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 59(e) (Doc. 19), which the Court denied on January 29, 2024. (Doc. 22.) The Court found that 5 Petitioner failed to present any newly discovered evidence, show that the Court committed clear error, 6 or identify a change in controlling law that would mandate amendment of the judgment. (Id. at 2-3.) 7 On March 5, 2024, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. 8 (Doc. 24.) On March 15, 2024, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to this Court to determine whether 9 to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 26.) The Ninth Circuit instructed: “If the district court 10 chooses to issue a certificate of appealability, the court should specify the issues that meet the required 11 showing; if the district court declines to issue a certificate, the court is requested to state its reasons.” 12 (Doc. 26 at 1-2, citing United States v. Asrar,

(9th Cir. 1997).) 13 II. Analysis 14 A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district 15 court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 16 Cockrell,

(2003). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of 17 appealability may issue under

“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing 18 of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). The court must either issue a 19 certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the 20 reasons why such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(b). 21 Where, as here, the petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability 22 “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 23 district court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 24 debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. 25 Woodford,

(9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)). 26 The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not dispute that Petitioner is ineligible to advance 27 a habeas claim pursuant to the escape hatch. Petitioner is unable to show that he did not have an 28 unobstructed procedural shot since he was granted permission to file, and did file, a successive § 2255 1 || petition, which is currently pending and for which Petitioner recently sought leave to amend. See 2 || United States v. Ford, No. 1:09-cr-00219-RDB (D. Md.) (Docs. 254, 342). Petitioner has not made 3 || the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 4 || I. Conclusion and Order 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES issuance of a certificate of appealability. The 6 || Clerk of Court is directed to file this Order with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 24- 7 1343. 8 9 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 10) Dated: _ March 19, 2024 ( LAW fi L. wan 11 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28