Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01405/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01405-0/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)

---

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

- 1 - 06CV1405

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER J. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1405 DMS (AJB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PETITIONER’S CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, et al.,,

Defendant.

On June 12, 2008, this Court issued an order denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus. [Doc.26]. On August 17, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for certificate of appealability. A

certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). See also Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Having reviewed the motion, the response, and the June 12, 2008 order denying the petition,

the Court finds reasonable jurists could disagree with this Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s

constitutional claims arising out of Petitioner’s allegation of prosecutorial misconduct. However,

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate this Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of

Case 3:06-cv-01405-DMS-AJB Document 30 Filed 08/20/08 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 - 06CV1405

counsel claim is debatable. Therefore, the Court grants Petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability of his prosecutorial misconduct claim but denies his request for a certificate of

appealability of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 19, 2008

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01405-DMS-AJB Document 30 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 2