Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01534/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01534-1/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

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability

1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT DAVIS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

THOMAS L. CAREY, Warder of

California State Prison, Solano, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-1534 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 20, 2007, the Court denied the instant petition on the

merits and entered judgment in favor of Respondent. On May 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a

notice of appeal. The Court construes Petitioner’s notice of appeal as a request for a

certificate of appealability. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.

1997). The Court will DENY the request for a certificate of appealability. 

DISCUSSION 

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

Case 5:04-cv-01534-JF Document 43 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability

2

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. 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 jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

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

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” section

2253(c)(2) codified the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983). See Slack, 120 S. Ct. at 1603. In

Barefoot, the Court explained that “a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal

right” means that a petitioner “must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among

jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner], or that the

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Barefoot, 463 U.S.

at 893 n.4 (citations and internal quotations omitted; emphasis in original). Any doubts

about whether the Barefoot standard has been met must be resolved in petitioner’s favor. 

Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000).

The Court denied the instant habeas petition after careful consideration of the

merits. The Court found no violation of Petitioner’s federal constitutional rights in the

underlying state court proceedings. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its ruling. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall transmit

the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner may then ask 

Case 5:04-cv-01534-JF Document 43 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability

3

the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-01534-JF Document 43 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability

4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Dennis P. Riordan

Riordan & Horgan 

523 Octavia Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

California State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:04-cv-01534-JF Document 43 Filed 06/13/07 Page 4 of 4