Harvey v. Chanos et al

Filing 19

ORDERED P shall not be granted a certificate of appealability re 18 Notice of Appeal. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/7/2010. ( Order electronically sent to USCA 9th Circuit on 7/8/2010. )(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Harvey v. Chanos et al

Doc. 19

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 On November 20, 2008, the court entered an order dismissing the habeas corpus petition in this case (docket #16). Judgment was entered on the same day (docket #17). Subsequently, petitioner filed a notice of appeal (docket #18). Petitioner has not filed a motion for certificate of appealability, and the matter is stalled. Thus, the court will sua sponte address the issue to allow the court of appeals to proceed on the matter. Certificate of Appealability 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 vs. GEORGE J. CHANOS, et al., Respondents. DANIEL THOMAS HARVEY, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3:07-cv-00114-JCM-VPC ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

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 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. The court will therefore deny petitioner a certificate of appealability. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED petitioner shall not be granted a certificate of appealability.

7th Dated this ______ day of July, 2010.

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

2