Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03713/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03713-1/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WALTER STEPHENS,

Petitioner,

 v.

C.A. TERHUNE, in his capacity as head of

the California Department of Corrections

Respondent.

 /

NO. C 03-3713 JW 

ORDER RE CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

On August 8, 2003, Petitioner initiated the instant action by filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus. Petitioner claimed: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) improper exclusion of evidence by the

trial court; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct. On November 2, 2005, the Court issued an Order Denying

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Judgment. On November 21, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice of

appeal. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(1), an appeal may not be taken unless the district court or

appellate court issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability may issue "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), and the court of

appeals is limited to considering only those claims. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir.

1999); Fuller v. Roe, 182 F.3d 699, 702-03 (9th Cir. 1999). "Where a district court has rejected the
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 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." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Based upon all papers filed to date, this Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to make the

requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate

of appealability.

Dated: November 28, 2005 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Cliff Gardner, casetris@aol.com 

Lazuli Mariah Whitt, lazuli@sbcglobal.net 

Morris Lenk, morris.lenk@doj.ca.gov 

Peggy S. Ruffra, peggy.ruffra@doj.ca.gov

Dated: November 28, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:__/s/ JW Chambers________

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy