Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00631/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00631-2/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

WAYMON MICKIANGELO BERRY, III.

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-0631 GEB DAD P 

vs.

MICHAEL E. KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with

an appeal of this court’s May 19, 2005 denial of his application

for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner challenges a 2001

disciplinary decision finding him guilty of disrespect while

incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison. On August 1, 2005, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded this case

for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of

appealability.

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28

U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial

Case 2:03-cv-00631-GEB-DAD Document 22 Filed 08/09/05 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

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The court must either

issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues

satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a

certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s

March 28, 2005 findings and recommendations, petitioner has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not

issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00631-GEB-DAD Document 22 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 2