Marroquin v. Curry

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/15/10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2010)

Download PDF
Marroquin v. Curry Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 vs. BEN CURRY, Warden, Respondent. / MARCO MARROQUIN, Petitioner, No. C 07-6098 PJH (PR) ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The petition was denied on October 25, 2010. Petitioner has filed a timely notice of appeal. A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without obtaining a certificate of appealability ("COA"). See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall grant a COA "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). The certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. See id. 2253(c)(3). "Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner claimed that there was not "some evidence" to support the parole denial. Jurists of reason might find it debatable whether the circumstances of the offense and rather slight post-offense evidence amounted to "some evidence. A COA is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 15, 2010. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\MARROQUIN6098.COA.wpd

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?