Yeats v. Williams et al

Filing 40

ORDER Denying 39 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 11/17/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DXS)

Yeats v. Williams et al

Doc. 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se. Petitioner has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. (Docket #39.) In order to proceed with his appeal, petitioner must receive a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22; 9th Cir. R. 22-1; Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 950-951 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Mikels, 236 F.3d 550, 551-52 (9th Cir. 2001). Generally, a petitioner must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" to warrant a certificate of appealability. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). "The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Id. (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). In vs. BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents. GARY LYNN YEATS, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) /

2: 09-cv-00798- KJD-RJJ ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

order to meet this threshold inquiry, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues differently; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Id. This Court has considered the issues raised by petitioner, with respect to whether they satisfy the standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability, and determines that none meet that standard. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for certificate of appealability is DENIED. (Docket #39.) DATED: November 17, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

2