Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02458/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02458-2/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

27

28

Order Denying COA

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.05\Kaser02458_coaden.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT KASER, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-02458 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, challenging the California Board of Prison Terms’

decision denying parole. On March 6, 2008, the Court denied the instant petition on the

merits and entered judgment in favor of Respondent. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal

and the matter was forwarded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

On July 15, 2010, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case for the limited purpose of

granting or denying a certificate of appealability. See Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-

55392, 2010 WL 1664977, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc) (overruling those

portions of White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004), and Rosas v. Nielsen,

428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), that relieved a prisoner from

obtaining a certificate of appealability to review the denial of a habeas petition

Case 5:05-cv-02458-JF Document 36 Filed 07/26/10 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 COA

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.05\Kaser02458_coaden.wpd 2

challenging an administrative decision denying parole). 

“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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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 administrative

decision denying parole. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its ruling. Accordingly, a certificate of

appealability is DENIED. 

The clerk shall close the case and forward this order to the Ninth Circuit from

which Petitioner may also seek a certificate of appealability. See United States v. Asrar,

116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:________________________ _______________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

7/19/10

Case 5:05-cv-02458-JF Document 36 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT KASER,

Petitioner,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV05-02458 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Robert P. Kaser D-41415

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

7/26/10

7/26/10

Case 5:05-cv-02458-JF Document 36 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 3