Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04516/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04516-3/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

1

 Petitioner “requests the Ninth Circuit appoint counsel to assist him” with his appeal. 

(Request at 1.) Since Petitioner directs this request at the Ninth Circuit rather than this Court, the

Court does not address this request.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Richard M. Quilopras,

Petitioner,

 v.

James A. Yates, Warden,

Respondent. /

NO. C 05-04516 JW 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

On December 18, 2009, the Court denied Petitioner Richard Quilopras’ Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and judgment was entered accordingly. (See Docket

Item Nos. 25-26.) Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal and Request for

Certificate of Appealability and Appointment of Counsel. (hereafter, “Request,” Docket Item No.

27.)1

Upon the filing of a notice of appeal and a request for a Certificate of Appealability

(“COA”), the district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for

issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(3)). If no express request is made for a COA, the notice of appeal shall be deemed to

constitute a request for a certificate. See id. 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

Case 5:05-cv-04516-JW Document 30 Filed 02/17/10 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

certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard, and the court of appeals is limited to

considering only those claims. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999); Fuller v.

Roe, 182 F.3d 699, 702-03 (9th Cir. 1999). “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). 

Since the Court denied Petitioner’s claims on the merits, Petitioner must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the Court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

Upon review of the Request, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required showing. 

Rather, the Request merely states that “reasonable jurists could differ as to the issues raised in the

petition.” (Request at 1.) Thus, the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not

warranted.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Request for a Certificate of Appealability.

Dated: February 17, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04516-JW Document 30 Filed 02/17/10 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Gerald August Engler Gerald.Engler@doj.ca.gov

Jeremy Friedlander Jeremy.Friedlander@doj.ca.gov

Peggy S. Ruffra peggy.ruffra@doj.ca.gov

Dated: February 17, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:05-cv-04516-JW Document 30 Filed 02/17/10 Page 3 of 3