Hiratsuka v. Houser

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ALLEN HIRATSUKA,
Petitioner,
v.
EARL HOUSER,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00018-SLG-MMS
ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
At Docket 67 is an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanding
the above captioned action to this Court for the limited purpose of granting or
denying a certificate of appealability.
Mr. Hiratsuka is a state pretrial detainee, who brought a Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 The Magistrate Judge
recommended the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
be denied without prejudice because Mr. Hiratsuka was challenging ongoing state
criminal proceedings.2 The Court reviewed and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action without prejudice.3 Neither
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation nor the District Court’s Order
1 Docket 1.
2 Docket 58.
3 Docket 63.
Case 3:21-cv-00018-SLG-MMS Document 68 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:21-cv-00018-SLG-MMS, Hiratsuka v. Houser
Order re Certificate of Appealability
Page 2 of 2
Re: Final Report and Recommendation addressed the issuance of a certificate of
appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) requires that an appeal from a habeas corpus
proceeding brought by a state prisoner may not advance unless a district or circuit
court judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability may
only issue if the petitioner-appellant has made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.4
The Court finds that Mr. Hiratsuka has not made the requisite showing of the
denial of a constitutional right; therefore, a certificate of appealability will not be
issued by this Court.5 Mr. Hiratsuka may request a certificate of appealability from
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
DATED this 9th day of March, 2022 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
5 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (certificate
of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
Case 3:21-cv-00018-SLG-MMS Document 68 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 2