Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01264/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01264-2/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)

---

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 Order Denying Petitioner’s Request for Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel on

Appeal Without Prejudice

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.05\Thompson264coadenmisc.wpd

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTWION E. THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

 D. L. RUNNEL, et al., 

Respondents. /

No. C 05-1264 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY; DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON

APPEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(Docket Nos. 46, 47)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 31, 2008, the Court denied the petition on

the merits and entered judgment in favor of Respondent. On April 28, 2008, Petitioner

signed and dated a notice of appeal, a request for a certificate of appealability and a motion

for appointment of counsel on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will DENY

the request for a certificate of appealability and DENY the motion for appointment of

counsel. 

///

Case 5:05-cv-01264-JF Document 49 Filed 05/12/08 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 Order Denying Petitioner’s Request for Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel on

Appeal Without Prejudice

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.05\Thompson264coadenmisc.wpd 2

DISCUSSION

Petitioner has filed a request for a certificate of appealability. A petitioner may not

appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without first obtaining a certificate

of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of probable cause to appeal). 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 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. See 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 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). 

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” 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). Slack, 120 S. Ct. at 1603. In Barefoot, the Court

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

petitioner “must 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.” Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4 (citations and

internal quotations omitted; emphasis in original). Any doubts about whether the Barefoot

standard has been met must be resolved in petitioner’s favor. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d

1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000).

The Court denied the instant petition because Petitioner failed to show any violation

of his federal constitutional rights in the underlying state criminal proceedings. Petitioner

has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether this Court was

correct in its ruling. 

Case 5:05-cv-01264-JF Document 49 Filed 05/12/08 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

1. Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see Fed.R.App.P.

22(b)(1), or if he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see

Fed.R.App.P. 22(b)(2).

Order Denying Petitioner’s Request for Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel on Appeal

Without Prejudice

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.05\Thompson264coadenmisc.wpd 3

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability (docket no. 46) is

DENIED. Based upon the Court’s denial of a certificate of appealability, Petitioner’s motion

for appointment of counsel on appeal (docket no. 47) is DENIED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability (docket no. 46) is DENIED. 

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal (docket no. 47) is DENIED without

prejudice. Petitioner may renew his requests with the Court of Appeals. The Clerk of Court 

shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals. See Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b).1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ _________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

5/8/08

Case 5:05-cv-01264-JF Document 49 Filed 05/12/08 Page 3 of 3