Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05691/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05691-1/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

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Mouton691coaden

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY R.M. MOUTON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-5691 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 17, 2006, the Court denied the instant

petition on the merits. The Court entered judgment in favor of Respondent on May 22,

2006. On June 2, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The Court construes the

notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b). See United States v. Asrar,

116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court will deny the 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

**Original filed 6/7/06**

Case 5:03-cv-05691-JF Document 28 Filed 06/07/06 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

27

28

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Mouton691coaden

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,

the Court DENIES the certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall transmit the file,

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

6/7/06

Case 5:03-cv-05691-JF Document 28 Filed 06/07/06 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

27

28

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Mouton691coaden

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Randy R.M. Mouton

P-75130

CA State Prison - Corcoran

P.O. Box 3466

Corcoran, CA 93212-3466

David H. Rose

California Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue 

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:03-cv-05691-JF Document 28 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 3