Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02626/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02626-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN K. CRAWFORD, No. 2:03cv02626 MCE JFM P 

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

DIANA K. BUTLER, Warden, et al., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this

court's June 6, 2007 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner can

appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App.

P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “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 of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-02626-MCE -JFM Document 28 Filed 07/13/07 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

1

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the

standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to

issuance of a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in the

following issues presented in the instant petition: the giving of California Jury Instruction No.

2.15 by the trial court violated petitioner’s due process rights by allowing the jury to draw an

impermissible inference of guilt as to the charge of first-degree burglary from the petitioner’s

possession of stolen property and petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel was

violated when the trial court denied his motion to substitute counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is issued in

the present action.

Dated: July 12, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02626-MCE -JFM Document 28 Filed 07/13/07 Page 2 of 2