Quintana v. Gipson

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 11/7/2014. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

MISAEL QUINTANA,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15

No. C13-05819 CRB
ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

v.
CONNIE GIPSON, WARDEN,
Respondent.

/

16
17

This case has been remanded for the limited purpose of granting of denying a

18

certificate of appealability (“COA”). A judge shall grant a COA “if the applicant has made a

19

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where

20

a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to

21

satisfy section 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable

22

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

23

wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Indeed, “a claim can be debatable

24

even though every jurist of reason might agree, after the COA has been granted and the case

25

has received full consideration, that petitioner will not prevail.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

26

U.S. 322, 338 (2003).

27

Here, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists could debate (1) whether there was

28

insufficient evidence of duress; and (2) whether there was ineffective assistance of counsel

1

for failure to present Stoll evidence, to present certain defense witnesses, or to conduct a

2

polygraph test. The Court GRANTS a certificate of appealability as to those two claims.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: November 7, 2014
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2