Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05005/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05005-4/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WENDELL HARRISON, CASE NO. CV-F-03-5005 AWI SMS HC

Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF 

vs. APPEALABILITY

YARBOROUGH, [Doc. 34]

Respondent.

 /

On March 22, 2006, the undersigned adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations and denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of Respondent the same date. 

On April 4, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, along with a request for a certificate of

appealability. 

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue

a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court 

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

Case 1:03-cv-05005-AWI -SMS Document 37 Filed 05/30/06 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

27

28

2

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further." Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 1034; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate "something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part." Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at

1040.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could find the Court’s

determination on Petitioner’s claim alleging a due process violation regarding the placement of the

stun-belt is debatable and deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Based on prior Ninth

Circuit authority, it is possible the Ninth Circuit will agree with Petitioner that placement of the stunbelt violated Petitioner’s due process rights because the trial court did not make the requisite factual

finding that the restraint was necessary. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s

motion for a certificate of appealability on Petitioner’s claim regarding the stun belt. The Court

DENIES Petitioner's motion for certificate of appealability in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05005-AWI -SMS Document 37 Filed 05/30/06 Page 2 of 2