Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-00580/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-00580-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eldon M. Schurz, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-97-580-PHX-EHC

DEATH PENALTY CASE

 ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

 

The Court has denied Petitioner Eldon Schurz’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In the event Petitioner appeals from this Court’s judgment, and in the interests of conserving

scarce Criminal Justice Act funds that might be consumed drafting an application for a

certificate of appealability to this Court, the Court on its own initiative has evaluated the

claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal

is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall” either issue a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) or state the reasons why such a certificate should not

issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can be

established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that

matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner” or that the

Case 2:97-cv-00580-EHC Document 156 Filed 09/25/07 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

issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For

procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate (1) whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the court’s

procedural ruling was correct. Id.

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate its resolution of the issues set

forth in Claim 11(A). The Court therefore grants a certificate of appealability as to this issue.

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum of Decision and Order filed

simultaneously on this date, the Order regarding the procedural status of Petitioner’s claims

filed on September 11, 2000 (Dkt. 29), and the Order granting, in part, and denying, in part,

Petitioner renewed motion to amend, filed on January 13, 2006 (Dkt. 133), the Court declines

to issue a certificate of appealability with respect to the remaining claims and procedural

issues.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court grants a Certificate of Appealability as

to the following issue:

Whether Claim 11(A), alleging a violation of Petitioner’s right to effective

assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of trial due to a failure to

investigate and present available mitigation, fails on the merits. 

DATED this 24th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:97-cv-00580-EHC Document 156 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2