White v. Adams

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Judge William Q Hayes on 6/11/2010 GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY re 29 Notice of Appeal. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H A Y E S , Judge: O n February 19, 2009, the Court issued an Order denying with prejudice Petitioner's P e titio n for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, and Judgment was entered. (Doc. # 27, 28). O n March 19, 2009, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of A p p e a l. (Doc. # 29). O n June 7, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an O r d e r remanding this case to this Court "for the limited purpose of granting or denying a c e rtif ic a te of appealability." (Doc. # 35). A certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial s h o w in g of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). It must appear that re a s o n a b le jurists could find the district court's assessment of the petitioner's constitutional c la im s debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). The Court W A L T E R HOWARD WHITE, P e titio n e r , vs. D E R R A L G. ADAMS, Warden, R e s p o n d e n t. C A S E NO. 1:07cv749-WQH-WMc ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION -1- 1:07cv749-WQH-WMc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o f Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated: [ T ]h e issuance of a COA is not precluded where the petitioner cannot meet the s ta n d a rd to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. . . . This general principle reflects the f a c t that the COA requirement constitutes a gatekeeping mechanism that p rev en ts [an appellate court] from devoting judicial resources on frivolous issues w h ile at the same time affording habeas petitioners an opportunity to persuade [ th e appellate court] . . . of the potential merit of issues that may appear, at first g la n c e , to lack merit. L a m b r ig h t v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing, inter alia, Jefferson v. W e lb o rn , 222 F.3d 286, 289 (7th Cir. 2000) (a COA should issue unless the claims are "utterly w ith o u t merit")). "[T]he district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the s ta n d a rd for issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted." United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3)). A lth o u g h the Court denied Petitioner's habeas Petition, the Court finds that Petitioner ra is e d colorable, nonfrivolous, constitutional arguments with respect to Petitioner's second g ro u n d for relief that "Petitioner was denied his due process rights to call w itn e s s e s /In v e s tig a tiv e Employee at his prison disciplinary hearing," and Petitioner's third g ro u n d for relief that "Petitioner was denied his due process rights when prison officials failed to allow Petitioner to raise facts on appeal through the Inmate Appeals Process." (Answer, Ex. 4 at 4-5, Doc. # 17-3 (incorporated by reference in Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, D o c . # 5); see also Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 9-12, Doc. # 27). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is GRANTED. D A T E D : June 11, 2010 W I L L I A M Q. HAYES U n ite d States District Judge -2- 1:07cv749-WQH-WMc

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?