Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00487/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00487-7/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

 Petitioner named D.K. Sisto, the former warden of California State Prison Solano as 1

Respondent. John W. Haviland is the current warden of California State Prison Solano. Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) allows the successor of a public office to automatically be

substituted as a party. Accordingly the clerk is directed to change the name of Respondent to

John W. Haviland. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY MANUEL LECHUGA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0487 JAM CHS P 

vs.

JOHN W. HAVILAND, et al., 1

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's February 8, 2010 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before

petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “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 of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues

Case 2:07-cv-00487-JAM-CHS Document 43 Filed 03/23/10 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 2

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

2

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in

the following issue presented in the instant petition: Whether the trial court’s exclusion of

petitioner’s “spontaneous utterance” violated his rights under the Sixth or Fourteenth

Amendment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is

issued in the present action.

DATED: March 22, 2010

/s/ John A. Mendez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00487-JAM-CHS Document 43 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 2