Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02418/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02418-3/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)

---

1

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LORI ANN WOODS, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

GLORIA HENRY, Warden, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________/ 

No. Civ. S-03-2418 RRB GGH 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

 Petitioner Lori Ann Woods (“Petitioner”) filed a request 

for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) following the denial 

of her petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging her 1999 

conviction for second degree murder with a firearm enhancement. 

For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s request for a COA is 

DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Petitioner shot and killed her husband, Randy Smith. She 

was convicted by a jury of second degree murder with use of a 

firearm and sentenced to state prison. On appeal, Petitioner 

Case 2:03-cv-02418-RRB -GGH Document 33 Filed 11/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

asserted Wheeler,1 evidentiary, and instructional error. 

Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed. 

On November 20, 2003, Petitioner, proceeding through 

counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging 

her 1999 conviction for second degree murder with a firearm 

enhancement. Petitioner challenged her conviction on the 

following grounds: (1) violation of double jeopardy; (2) jury 

instruction error; (3) improper exclusion of evidence; and (4) 

cumulative error. On July 9, 2007, this court denied the 

petition. On July 11, 2007, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal 

and request for a COA. On November 5, 2007, the Ninth Circuit 

issued an order remanding the case for the limited purpose of 

granting or denying Petitioner’s request for a COA. 

II. DISCUSSION 

 A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal 

habeas corpus proceeding without first obtaining a COA. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 335-

36 (2003) (a prisoner denied habeas relief by a district court 

may not appeal their habeas corpus petition without first 

seeking and obtaining a COA from a circuit justice or judge). 

“This is a jurisdictional prerequisite because the COA statute 

mandates that ‘[u]nless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the 

court of appeals . . . .’” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (quoting 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)). Thus, until a COA is issued, a circuit 

court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the merits of a habeas 

 

1

 People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (1978). 

Case 2:03-cv-02418-RRB -GGH Document 33 Filed 11/14/07 Page 2 of 4
3

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

corpus petition denied or dismissed by a district court. 

Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336. 

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); Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336; Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). “A petitioner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that 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, 537 U.S. at 327; see Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484 (“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.”). 

“The COA determination under § 2253(c) requires an overview 

of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of 

their merits.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336. While the 

Petitioner is not required to prove that some jurists would 

grant the petition for habeas corpus, he or she must demonstrate 

“something more than the absence of frivolity” or the existence 

of mere “good faith” on his or her part. Id. at 337-38. At the 

COA stage, the inquiry is whether a “substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right” has been proved. Id. at 342. 

The question is the debatability of the underlying 

constitutional claim, not the resolution of that debate. Id. 

Case 2:03-cv-02418-RRB -GGH Document 33 Filed 11/14/07 Page 3 of 4
4

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

 Based on the foregoing principles, and after careful 

consideration of the record in this matter, the court concludes 

that Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists 

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 

proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required 

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” to 

warrant the issuance of a COA. Accordingly, the court hereby 

declines to issue a COA. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s request for a 

COA is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2007. 

 s/RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:03-cv-02418-RRB -GGH Document 33 Filed 11/14/07 Page 4 of 4