Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04608/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04608-1/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)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINH H. NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY KANE, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 00-4608 CRB 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Now before the Court is petitioner’s request for issuance of a certificate of

appealability (“COA”). A judge shall grant a COA “only if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The

certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard, see id. § 2253(c)(3), and the court

of appeals is limited to considering only those claims. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098,

1103 (9th Cir. 1999); Fuller v. Roe, 182 F.3d 699, 702-03 (9th Cir. 1999). 

“Where 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000).

Section 2253(c)(2) codified the standard announced by the United States Supreme

Court in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983). In Barefoot, the Court explained

that “a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right” means that a petitioner “must 

Case 3:00-cv-04608-CRB Document 21 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2000\4608\certificateappealability.wpd 2

demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve

the issues [in a different manner], or that the questions are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Id. at 893 n.4 (citations and internal quotations omitted;

emphasis in original).

Here, the Court concludes that petitioner has made a “substantial showing” of denial

of a constitutional right with respect to his claim that his petition should be reopened

pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) in order to pursue his ineffective assistance of counsel claim under

the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:00-cv-04608-CRB Document 21 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2