Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01542/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01542-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW CLAYTON,

Petitioner,

 v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, 

Corcoran State Prison,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1542 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Certificate of Appealability

On July 2, 2010, the court denied petitioner Andrew Clayton’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Docket No. 10 (Order). Petitioner has applied for a certificate

of appealability (“COA”) under 28 U.S.C. section 2253. Docket No. 13 (Application).

28 U.S.C. section 2253 requires a petitioner to obtain a COA from the district court prior to

filing an appeal. A COA may issue when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The “substantial showing” may be

satisfied when the petitioner demonstrates “that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate

to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000)

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).

In its denial of petitioner’s petition, the court found that petitioner could not demonstrate that

the hearsay statement he sought to introduce bore persuasive assurances of trustworthiness. In his

application for a COA, petitioner argues that the excluded hearsay statement is substantially

consistent with the prosecution’s theory of the case. That is not the standard by which admissibility

Case 3:08-cv-01542-MHP Document 14 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 2
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

is determined. Due to the lack of persuasive assurance, as required by Chambers v. Mississippi, 410

U.S. 284, 302 (1973), the state court’s exclusion of the hearsay statement was not contrary to or an

unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. 

Consequently, reasonable jurists would not find the court’s assessment debatable or wrong.

Petitioner’s request for a COA is DENIED. The Clerk shall forward the case file to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270

(9th Cir. 1997).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:08-cv-01542-MHP Document 14 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2