Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02246/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02246-6/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

ROGER BETTENCOURT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-2246 FCD DAD P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 2, 2010, the Court issued an Order that

denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on

March 4, 2010. This Court did not grant or deny a certificate of appealability, because prisoners

challenging parole decisions via habeas corpus were not required at that time to obtain said

certificates pursuant to governing circuit court precedent. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002,

1004 (9th Cir. 2004); Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2005). 

On April 22, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Hayward v. Marshall,

No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. Apr.22, 2010) (en banc). In Hayward, the Ninth

Circuit overruled White and Rosas and held, inter alia, that prisoners are required to obtain a

certificate of appealability to review the denial of a habeas petition challenging an administrative

Case 2:07-cv-02246-FCD-DAD Document 27 Filed 06/04/10 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

1

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

standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to

issuance of a certificate of probable cause. Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir.

2002) .

2

decision such as the denial of parole by the parole board. Id. at *5. Pursuant to its en banc

decision in Hayward, on May 20, 2010, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case for the limited

purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability.

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).

“The standard for a certificate of appealability is lenient.” Hayward, 2010 WL

1664977, at *4. A petitioner need only “show that reasonable jurists could debate the district

court’s resolution or that the issues are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 

Id. (internal quotations omitted). See also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003);

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983); Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th

Cir. 2002).1

Here, petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right in the following issue presented in the instant petition: whether the failure of the California

Board of Prison Terms to find petitioner suitable for parole at a hearing on December 27, 2005

violated his right to due process.

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

issued in the present action.

DATED: June 4,2010. 

Case 2:07-cv-02246-FCD-DAD Document 27 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 2