Donald Green v. The State of California Board of Parole Hearing et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying Certificate of Appealability. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would agree that the California conclusions were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES certificate of appealability in this case. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/1/2010. (Order electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)

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 Petitioner noted that a certificate of appealability is not required to be filed for life prisoners challenging parole denials, but this is incorrect. The Court, however, will interpret the notice of appeal as a request for certificate of appealability. -108cv1803 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONALD GREEN, vs. LARRY SMALL, Warden, Respondent. On September 17, 2008, Petitioner Donald Green filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 14, 2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") advising that the Court deny the petition. (Doc. No. 21.) On September 21, 2009, Petitioner filed objections, (Doc. No. 24) and, having considered those objections and the R&R, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Major's recommendation. (Doc. No. 26.) On March 24, 2010, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal (Doc. No. 28).1 A certificate of appealability is authorized "if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). "A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his Petitioner, CASE NO. 08 CV 1803 JLS (BLM) ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 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 constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court must either (1) grant the certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or (2) state why a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). The Petition raised three legal issues, none of which merit certificate of appealability. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would agree that the California conclusions were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES certificate of appealability in this case. DATED: April 1, 2010 Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge -2- 08cv1803

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?