Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02853/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02853-9/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)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

HAROLD HAWKS,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY P. KANE,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-2853 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

On December 19, 2006, Petitioner Harold Hawks filed a notice of appeal without filing a

motion for certificate of appealability. The Court shall construe the notice of appeal as a request

for a certificate of appealability.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “[a]n appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from the

order entered on the motion [to vacate] as from a final judgment on application from a writ of

habeas corpus.” A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding 

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (“COA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 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); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

The certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). 

“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing

required to satisfy [section] 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

Case 3:05-cv-02853-JSW Document 39 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

debatable or wrong.” Id. at 484. This requires an overview of the claims in the petition and a

general assessment of their merits. It does not require full consideration of the factual or legal

bases adduced in support of the claims. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Nor

does it require a showing that the appeal will succeed. Id.; accord Lambright v. Stewart, 220

F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (issuance of COA is not precluded merely because petitioner

cannot meet standard for actually obtaining habeas relief). The question is the debatability of

the underlying claim, not the resolution of that debate. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 342.

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” section

2253(c)(2) codified the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Barefoot v.

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983). Slack, 529 U.S. at 483. In Barefoot, the Supreme Court

explained that “a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right” means that a petitioner

“must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could

resolve the issues [in a different manner], or that the questions are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted; emphasis in

original). 

The COA must indicate which issues satisfy the section 2253(c)(3) standard, and the

Court of Appeals is limited to considering only those claims. Hivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098,

1103 (9th Cir. 1999).

The Court finds that Hawks’ has met his burden to show a certificate of appealability is

warranted as to whether the Board’s decision to deny him parole violated his due process rights. 

As such his request for a certificate of appealability is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02853-JSW Document 39 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2