Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00540/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00540-3/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

LOUIS IRA MENDEZ HAMMONDS, 2:02-cv-0540-MCE-DAD-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

JOE McGRATH, Warden, et al., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court's February 8, 2006, 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).

///

Case 2:02-cv-00540-MCE -DAD Document 34 Filed 03/17/06 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be 1

specifically identified, the standard for issuance of a

Certificate of Appealability is the same as the standard that

applied to issuance of a certificate of probable cause. 

Jennings, at 1010.

2

The Certificate of Appealability must “indicate which specific

issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C.

§ 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) whether Petitioner received ineffective

assistance of trial counsel; (2) whether the trial court erred in

excluding evidence of third party culpability; (3) whether the

trial court erred in failing to limit expert testimony; and (4)

whether Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the

trial court’s decision to allow the wheelchair-bound victim to

remain in the courtroom during trial. 

Petitioner also requests the appointment of counsel on

appeal. That request will be denied without prejudice to its

renewal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

/// 

Case 2:02-cv-00540-MCE -DAD Document 34 Filed 03/17/06 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:

1. A Certificate of Appealability is issued in the present

action; and

2. Petitioner’s March 6, 2006, Request for the appointment

of counsel on appeal is denied without prejudice to its renewal

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

DATED: March 16, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00540-MCE -DAD Document 34 Filed 03/17/06 Page 3 of 3