Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00679/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00679-9/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 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY - 1

2:01-CV-0679-RRB-JFM-P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:01-CV-0679-RRB-JFM-P

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner Joel Bridgeforth

(“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, with a Motion

for Request for Certificate of Appealability (Docket No. 41),

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

In order to be entitled to a certificate of

appealability, a petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.”1 To meet this standard, “[t]he

petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable

JOEL BRIDGEFORTH,

Petitioner,

vs.

A.C. NEWLAND, et al.,

Respondents.

Case 2:01-cv-00679-RRB -JFM Document 42 Filed 10/02/06 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

2 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (“To

obtain a [certificate of appealability] under § 2253(c), a habeas

prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, a demonstration that . . . includes showing

that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter,

agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different

manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.’”) (citation omitted).

3 United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 2563

(2006). 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY - 2

2:01-CV-0679-RRB-JFM-P

or wrong.”2 Although the undersigned remains comfortable with its

decision in this matter, there may be room for debate.

As a consequence, because: (1) the “[d]eprivation of the

right [to counsel] is ‘complete’ when the defendant is erroneously

prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants . . .”3;

and (2) the Court concludes reasonable jurists could debate whether

Petitioner’s fundamental right to counsel was violated, given the

specific facts of this case, Petitioner’s Motion for Request for

Certificate of Appealability at Docket No. 41 is hereby GRANTED.

ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2006.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-00679-RRB -JFM Document 42 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2