Mayfield v. Carey, et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/24/10 ORDERING a Certificate of Appealability SHALL ISSUE IN THIS ACTION re 19 Notice of Appeal filed by William Blaine Mayfield. (Carlos, K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 25, 2008, the previously assigned District 18 Judge issued an Order that denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits. Petitioner 19 filed a notice of appeal on September 16, 2008. This Court did not grant or deny a certificate of 20 appealability, because prisoners challenging parole decisions via habeas corpus were not required 21 at that time to obtain said certificates pursuant to governing circuit court precedent. See White v. 22 Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004); Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th 23 Cir. 2005). 24 On April 22, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 25 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). In Hayward, the Ninth Circuit overruled White and 26 1 vs. TOM CAREY, Warden, et al., Respondents. / ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM BLAINE MAYFIELD, Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1182 JAM DAD P

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

Rosas and held, inter alia, that prisoners are required to obtain a certificate of appealability to review the denial of a habeas petition challenging an administrative decision such as the denial of parole by the parole board. Id. at 554. Pursuant to its en banc decision in Hayward, on June 3, 2010, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability. 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. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). "The standard for a certificate of appealability is lenient." Hayward, 603 F.3d at 553. A petitioner need only "show that reasonable jurists could debate the district court's resolution or that the issues are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Id. (internal quotations omitted). See also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983); Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002).1 Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in the following issue presented in the instant petition: whether former California Governor Gray Davis's reversal of the April 2, 2002 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings finding petitioner suitable for parole violated petitioner's right to due process. ///// ///// /////

Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of a certificate of probable cause. Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) .
1

2

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is issued in the present action.

DATED: June 24, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3