TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stephen Charles FORDE v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4210, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7042 Stephen Charles Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission

Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 4, 1997
Docket
No. 97-55164
Judges
Fletcher, Reinhardt, Fernandez
Citations
114 F.3d 87897 Daily Journal DAR 70421997 WL 29231297 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 42101997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13013

Opinion

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 138 cases

View all citing references →
1998: 11999: 22002: 12003: 22005: 42006: 12008: 12011: 12019: 52020: 122021: 122022: 82023: 182024: 142025: 402026: 1619982026peak 2025 · 40

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Kwok Chee Kwan, AKA Jeff Kwan407 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2005)
  2. Harrison v. Ollison519 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2008)
  3. Dock McNeely v. Lou Blanas336 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2003)
  4. John Evangelist (Thomas) Murphy v. United States199 F.3d 599 (2d Cir. 1999)
  5. Close v. Thomas653 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011)
  6. Day v. Nash191 F. App'x 137 (3d Cir. 2006)

Most recent

  1. LeAnthony T. Winston v. Warden J. DoererNo. 1:25-cv-01799 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2026)
  2. Anuj Mahendra Patel v. Warden, FCI Mendota CampNo. 1:26-cv-04617 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2026)
  3. Daniel Dewayne Aikens v. DoererNo. 1:26-cv-02281 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2026)
  4. Ronnie Jackson, Jr., aka Hasan Ali v. J. DoererNo. 1:26-cv-00061 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2026)
  5. David A Jackson-Mackay v. Jason GuntherNo. 2:25-cv-02103 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2026)
  6. Juan Manuel Simental-Lopez v. Warden, FCI MendotaNo. 1:25-cv-00303 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2026)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996) 582
Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 106 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 1997) 360

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list