Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_98-cv-02244/USCOURTS-azd-2_98-cv-02244-1/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

James Lynn Styers, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-2244-PHX-EHC

DEATH PENALTY CASE

 ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

 

The Court has denied Pet it ioner James Lynn Styers’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

ap p lication 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 (9t h Cir.

2002). 

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

is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered t he 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 constit ut ional right.” This showing can be

est ablished by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for t hat

Case 2:98-cv-02244-JAT Document 128 Filed 01/10/07 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

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

issues were “adequate t o 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 jurist s 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 resolut ion of the issues set

forth in Claim Seven. The Court therefore grants a certificat e of ap p ealability as to these

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

simultaneously on this date, as well as the Order regarding the procedural status of

Petitioner’s claims filed on September 22, 2000 (Dkt. 86), t he 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 issues:

Whether Claim Seven, alleging a violation of Petitioner’s right to effective

assistance of counsel at the guilt phase of trial, fails on the merits. 

DATED this 9th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:98-cv-02244-JAT Document 128 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 2