Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00965/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00965-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY MABRY,

Petitioner,

v.

L.E. SCRIBNER, WARDEN,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08-CV-965-BEN

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

On November 21, 2008, this Court denied Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner has filed a Notice of Appeal.

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). To meet this standard,

Petitioner must show that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; or (2) that a court

could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the questions are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); Lambright

v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000), citing Slack v. Mc Daniel, 529 U.S. 473

(2000), and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). Petitioner does not have to show “that he

should prevail on the merits. He has already failed in that endeavor.” Lambright, 220 F.3d at

1025, citing Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n. 4. Based on this authority, the Court DENIES a

certificate of appealability as to all of Petitioner’s claims. 

Case 3:08-cv-00965-BEN-LSP Document 28 Filed 12/01/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because the state department of

corrections has miscalculated his sentence and parole date. Three bars to habeas relief prevent

Petitioner’s claim from going forward: (1) the one-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1));

(2) the exhaustion requirement (28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)); and (3) the bar for successive petitions (28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)). 

This Court has fully reviewed the legal issues raised by Petitioner and concludes that the

claims are not debatable among reasonable jurists and do not deserve further encouragement.

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s application for certificate

of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2008

ROGER T. BENITEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00965-BEN-LSP Document 28 Filed 12/01/08 Page 2 of 2