Romero v. Runnels

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 07/28/09 ORDERING that petitioner's 66 Request for COA is DENIED. (Benson, A.)

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 vs. D. RUNNELS, Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 66). Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 1 WILLIAM A. ROMERO, Petitioner, ORDER No. CIV S-04-0459-MCE-CMK-P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

22(b); but see Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1010 (9th Cir. 2004), and suggesting that a certificate of appealability is not required in cases where petitioner challenges the denial of parole). For the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's May 22, 2009, findings and recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 66) is denied. Dated: July 28, 2009 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2