-VPC Williams, Jr. v. Godinez et al

Filing 79

ORDER Re: 78 USCA Order (12-16139). IT IS ORDERED that petitioner is DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. (Order sent electronically to USCA). Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 6/19/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 OSCAR WILLIAMS, JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) SALVADOR A. GODINEZ, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) ____________________________________) 3:90-cv-0324-HDM-VPC USCA: 12-16139 ORDER 15 This action was on a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought in 1990. Before the 16 Court is an Order remanding the matter from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in order for this 17 Court to determine whether a certificate of appealability should issue. ECF No. 78. On July 23, 18 1993, this Court entered an order determining that any appeal of the Court’s order and judgment 19 would not be taken in good faith. See ECF No. 72, docket #60. 20 In order to proceed with an appeal from this court, petitioner must receive a certificate 21 of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Generally, a petitioner must make “a substantial showing 22 of the denial of a constitutional right” to warrant a certificate of appealability. Id. The Supreme 23 Court has held that a petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district 24 court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 25 473, 484 (2000). 26 The Supreme Court further illuminated the standard for issuance of a certificate of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 appealability in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). The Court stated in that case: We do not require petitioner to prove, before the issuance of a COA, that some jurists would grant the petition for habeas corpus. Indeed, a claim can be debatable even though every jurist of reason might agree, after the COA has been granted and the case has received full consideration, that petitioner will not prevail. As we stated in Slack, “[w]here 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.” Id. at 1040 (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). The Court has considered the issues raised by petitioner, with respect to whether they 9 satisfy the standard for issuance of a certificate of appeal, and the Court determines that none meet 10 that standard. The Court sees no basis to reevaluate its original determinations as to the validity of 11 an appeal. Accordingly, the Court will deny petitioner a certificate of appealability. 12 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner is DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. 14 15 Dated this 19th day of June, 2012. 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

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?