-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)
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?