Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00887/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00887-0/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; Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Anderson887coaden 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ANDERSON, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

MICHAEL KNOWLES,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-0887 JF

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY; DENYING

REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL 

(Docket Nos. 22, 23)

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 1, 2006, the Court denied the instant

petition on the merits and entered judgment in favor of Respondent. On April 3, 2006,

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, a motion for a certificate of appealability, and a request

for appointment of counsel. The Court concludes that the notice of appeal is timely as

Petitioner signed and dated the notice on March 29, 2006. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.

266, 276 (1988) (notice of appeal of pro se prisoner is deemed filed when it is delivered

to prison officials for forwarding to the district court). The Court will deny the motion

for a certificate of appealability and the request for appointment of counsel.

\\\ 

**E-filed 5/1/06**

Case 5:04-cv-00887-JF Document 25 Filed 05/01/06 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; Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Anderson887coaden 2

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

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.” 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 motion for a certificate of appealability (docket no. 23) is DENIED. 

\\\

\\\

Case 5:04-cv-00887-JF Document 25 Filed 05/01/06 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; Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Anderson887coaden 3

Based upon the Court's denial of appealability, the Court concludes that the

interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. Petitioner's request

for appointment counsel (docket no. 22) is DENIED. 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

4/27/06

Case 5:04-cv-00887-JF Document 25 Filed 05/01/06 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; Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Anderson887coaden 4

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

David Anderson

T-12506

Mule Creek State Prison

P.O. Box 409099

B-8/248-U

Ione, CA 95640-9000

Gerald A. Engler

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:04-cv-00887-JF Document 25 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 4