Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01489/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01489-0/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 - 08cv1489

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 DAVID EDWARD MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv1489 DMS (POR)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

vs. APPEALABILITY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondent.

On August 28, 2008, this Court issued an order dismissing without prejudice Petitioner David

Edward Martinez’s (“Petitioner's”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

and denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4.) Petitioner was given until October

24, 2008 to pay the filing fee or provide proof of his inability to pay and submit a First Amended

Petition that named a proper respondent and stated grounds for relief. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner filed a

requests for certificate of appealability (Doc. 8), and for an extension of time to file his request (Doc.

9). The request for the certificate of appealability also appears to include motions to proceed in forma

pauperis, for appointment of counsel, and requesting immediate injunctive, compensatory, and punitive

damages. (Doc. 8, at 3-8.)

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 3:08-cv-01489-DMS-POR Document 10 Filed 10/23/08 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 - 08cv1489

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Having reviewed the application, petition, and the August 29, 2008 order denying the petition

without prejudice, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would

find this Court’s denial of the petition debatable. Therefore, the Court denies Petitioner’s request for

a certificate of appealability. Because the Court has denied Petitioner’s request, it does not reach the

other motions raised in Petitioner’s application.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 23, 2008

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01489-DMS-POR Document 10 Filed 10/23/08 Page 2 of 2