Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02383/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02383-0/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

JERRY D. ELSTER,

Petitioner, 

 v.

JILL BROWN, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 04-2383 WHA (PR) 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The

petition was denied in a ruling entered on September 27, 2006. On October 19, 2006, he filed a

notice of appeal and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Although he

does not request a certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal will be deemed a request for

the certificate. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without

first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of probable cause to

appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall grant a certificate of

appealability "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). 

“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

Case 3:04-cv-02383-WHA Document 20 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 2
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

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

wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

The petition was denied because there were a number of factors in addition to the nature

of the offense to support the denied of parole – for instance, petitioner had been convicted of

manufacturing and possessing a weapon while in prison. Reasonable jurists would not find the

result here debatable or wrong. The certificate of appealability implied from the notice of

appeal is DENIED. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (document

number 18) is DENIED. 

The clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals. 

See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see R.App.P. 22(b)(1), or if

he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see R.App.P. 22(b)(2). He

may also ask the court of appeals to permit him to proceed IFP on appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25 , 2006. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.04\ELSTER383.COA

Case 3:04-cv-02383-WHA Document 20 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2