Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01948/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01948-1/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

MANUEL MANLICLIC NAVARRO,

Petitioner, 

 v.

A. P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-1948 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY 

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The case

was dismissed in an order entered on June 14, 2007. Judgment was entered that day. Petitioner

filed a motion to reconsider which is deemed filed on July 18, 2007, applying the mailbox rule. 

It was denied on July 30. On August 17, 2007, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and request

for a certificate of appealability ("COA").

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without

first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of probable cause to

appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall grant a certificate of

appealability "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). “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

Case 3:06-cv-01948-WHA Document 18 Filed 08/28/07 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

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v.

Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a

prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the

grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form

the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing §

2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is

expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory

Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas

petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” 

Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996)

(Schroeder, J., concurring). 

The petition was summarily dismissed because after two amended petitions petitioner

still had not stated any coherent basis for federal habeas relief. Jurists of reason would not find

this conclusion debatable or wrong. Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability

(document number 17 on the docket) is DENIED. His motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal (document 17) is DENIED as moot; he may renew it in the court of appeals if

that court grants a COA. 

The clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals. 

See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see R.App.P. 22(b)(1), or if

he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see R.App.P. 22(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27 , 2007.

 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.06\NAVARRO948.COA.wpd 

Case 3:06-cv-01948-WHA Document 18 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 2