Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02337/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02337-14/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

DEREK TATE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-2337 MCE GGH P

vs.

ANTHONY LAMARQUE, ORDER

Respondent.

 /

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

this court's September 28, 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 2:02-cv-02337-MCE -GGH Document 98 Filed 11/07/07 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

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: 1) whether the trial court abused its

discretion when it permitted introduction of prior bad acts evidence against petitioner; 2) whether

the trial court abused its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to testify; 3) whether

counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and challenge the prior bad acts evidence; 4)

whether the trial court improperly granted petitioner’s motion to represent himself; 5) whether

the trial court improperly denied petitioner’s motion for a continuance; 6) whether the

prosecution committed misconduct by withholding evidence in violation of Brady; 7) whether the

remaining claims were properly dismissed as either unexhausted or barred by the statute of

limitations.

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

issued in the present action.

Dated: November 7, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02337-MCE -GGH Document 98 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 2