Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00426/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00426-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE DAVIS,

Petitioner, 2:03-cv-0426-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

K. PROSPER, et al., 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has timely filed a notice of appeal of this

court's August 22, 2005, denial of his application for a writ of

habeas corpus. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a

certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28

U.S.C. § 2253 “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 of appealability must “indicate 

Case 2:03-cv-00426-GEB-GGH Document 37 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 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

1 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be

specifically identified, the standard for issuance of a

certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that

applies to issuance of a certificate of probable cause. 

Jennings, 290 F.3d at 1010.

2

which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. Id.

§ 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for

any issue that petitioner can demonstrate is “‘debatable among

jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.’” Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir.

2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right in the following issues presented in

the instant petition: 1) petitioner’s motion to sever was denied

in violation of his right to due process; 2) petitioner was

denied his right to present evidence and confront witnesses in

violation of the Sixth Amendment; 3) inherently suggestive

photographic identification evidence was admitted in violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment; and 4) there was insufficient evidence

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:03-cv-00426-GEB-GGH Document 37 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of

appealability is issued in the present action.

Dated: September 16, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00426-GEB-GGH Document 37 Filed 09/19/05 Page 3 of 3