Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02175/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02175-3/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)

---

United States District Court

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

LESLIE PLITZ,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA PAROLE BOARD

COMMISSIONER,

Respondent.

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-02175 SBA (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Leslie Plitz, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California,

filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he

challenges the denial of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings. The petition was denied

on its merits in an order dated March 10, 2010. Judgment was entered that day. 

On March 22, 2010, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b). The Clerk processed the appeal without a ruling on whether a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) should issue because at that time a prisoner did not have to obtain a COA in

order to appeal the denial of a habeas petition challenging the denial of parole. See White v.

Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004); Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir.

2005) (per curiam). On April 22, 2010, the Ninth Circuit overruled White and Rosas on that point,

and now a COA is necessary for an appeal in such cases. Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06- 55392,

2010 WL 1664977, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc). On May 12, 2010, pursuant to

Hayward, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the limited purpose of a decision on whether to

grant or deny a COA. 

A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability "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. Id. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has rejected the

constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: the

Case 4:07-cv-02175-SBA Document 19 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Doc1.wpd 2

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). For

the same reasons set out in the ruling on the petition, the state court decisions upholding the denial

of parole were neither “an ‘unreasonable application of the California ‘some evidence’

requirement,” nor were they “‘based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence.’” Hayward, 2010 WL 1664977 at *11 (quoting 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)) (footnote omitted). 

Jurists of reason would not find the Court’s resolution of the constitutional claims in this case

debatable or wrong. Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

The clerk shall close the file, and transmit it, including a copy of this order, to the Ninth

Circuit. See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Petitioner may then ask the Ninth Circuit to issue the certificate, see R.App.P. 22(b)(1), or if he does

not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see R.App.P. 22(b)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 6-1-10 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge 

Case 4:07-cv-02175-SBA Document 19 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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

C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Doc1.wpd 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE PILTZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA PAROLE BOARD

COMMISSIONER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-02175 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 2, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Leslie Piltz D58060

Correctional Training Facility

P.O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 93960-0689

Dated: June 2, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-02175-SBA Document 19 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 3