Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00942/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00942-2/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

- 1 - 07cv942

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NA’IL CHARLES DOWNEY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07-CV-942-JLS (POR)

ORDER: DENYING

PETITIONER’S APPLICATION

FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 23.)

vs.

MATTHEW CATE,

Respondent.

Petitioner Na’il Charles Downey, on May 23, 2007, filed the present petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) On September 24, 2008, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

advising that the Court deny the petition. (Doc. No. 8.) On January 23, 2009, Petitioner filed

objections, (Doc. No. 17.) and, having considered those objections and the R&R, the Court adopted

Magistrate Judge Porter’s recommendation. (Doc. No. 20.) On April 23, 2009, Petitioner filed a

notice of appeal (Doc. No. 22) and an application for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. No. 23.) 

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). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve

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

Case 3:07-cv-00942-JLS-POR Document 24 Filed 04/28/09 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 - 07cv942

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court must either (1) grant the certificate of appealability

indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or (2) state why a certificate should not issue.

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

The petition raised four legal issues, none of which merit a certificate of appealability. The

Court finds that reasonable jurists would agree that the California Court of Appeal’s conclusions were

neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly,

no certificate of appealability should issue in this case. Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 28, 2009

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00942-JLS-POR Document 24 Filed 04/28/09 Page 2 of 2