Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05243/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05243-6/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUHAMMED HAROON ALI,

Petitioner, No. C 05-5243 PJH

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART CERTIFICATE 

v. OF APPEALABILITY

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, WARDEN,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

 

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a state prisoner. On

August 24, 2007, this court denied Ali’s petition on the merits. Ali filed a notice of

appeal on September 20, 2007, which this court will also treat as a request for a

certificate of appealability (“COA”).

To obtain a COA, Ali must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Section 2253(c)(3) requires a court granting a

COA to indicate which issues satisfy the COA standard. Here, the court finds that three

of the five issues presented by Ali in his petition meet the above standard and

accordingly GRANTS the COA as to those issues only. See generally Miller-El v.

Case 4:05-cv-05243-PJH Document 28 Filed 09/21/07 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 -

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). The issues for which the court grants the COA include

Ali’s claims:

1) that his constitutional rights were violated by the prosecutor’s racially

discriminatory use of peremptory challenges;

2) that the trial court’s manslaughter jury instruction violated his due process

and fair trial rights; and

3) that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the trial court’s

manslaughter jury instruction and the prosecution’s related closing

argument.

The court, however, DENIES a COA as to the two remaining claims concerning the

introduction of propensity evidence and the jury instruction governing propensity

evidence.

Accordingly, the clerk shall forward the file, including a copy of this order, to the

Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268,

1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

Ali’s accompanying application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is

DENIED without prejudice pending Ali’s submission of documents establishing that he is

entitled to proceed as such.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-05243-PJH Document 28 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 2