Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04426/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04426-4/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)

---

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

BOYD F. HALL, III,

Petitioner,

v.

A.P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4426 MMC (PR) 

Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-15218

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY; DIRECTIONS

TO CLERK

On October 31, 2005, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a

Board of Prison Terms’ (“Board”) decision finding him unsuitable for parole. The Court, by

order filed December 23, 2008, denied the petition on the merits. Judgment was entered that

same date. 

On January 26, 2008, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. At that time, Ninth Circuit

case law held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) was not required for habeas petitions

challenging the Board’s denial of parole. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th

Cir. 2005) (per curiam); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Consequently, the Clerk processed the appeal herein without a ruling on whether a COA

Case 3:05-cv-04426-MMC Document 21 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

2

should issue. On April 22, 2010, the Ninth Circuit overruled those portions of Rosas and

White that relieved a prisoner from obtaining a COA to review the denial of a habeas petition

challenging an administrative decision denying parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, No.

06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). On May 25, 2010, the Ninth Circuit, pursuant to the

Hayward decision, remanded the instant case to this Court for the limited purpose of deciding

whether a COA should be granted. The Court next addresses that issue. 

A judge shall grant a COA “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); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d

1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). If the request to issue a certificate is declined, the court must

state the reasons why the certificate should not be granted. Id. “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). 

In denying the instant petition, the Court found the state court’s decision rejecting

petitioner’s claims, specifically, his claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to deny

parole, and (2) the Board was operating under an anti-parole policy, was neither contrary to

nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, nor was

such decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. (Order, filed Dec. 23,

2008, at 4:21-8:8. ) For the same reasons stated by the Court in so ruling, the Court

concludes the instant action is not a case in which reasonable jurists would find the Court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

Accordingly, a COA is hereby DENIED.

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-04426-MMC Document 21 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

3

The Clerk shall forward a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,

and shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04426-MMC Document 21 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 3