Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00744/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00744-4/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 Request for COA; Deny IFP on Appeal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.06\McGhee744_coa-deny.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL MCGHEE, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-00744 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY; DENYING

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAL IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 36 & 37)

On May 21, 2008, the Court denied this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

on the merits and entered judgment in favor of Respondent. On June 18, 2008, Petitioner

signed his notice of appeal and motion for certificate of appealability, which were filed

with the Court on June 23, 2008. (Docket No. 37.) 

 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. See 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

Case 5:06-cv-00744-JF Document 39 Filed 08/12/08 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

27

28

Order Denying Request for COA; Deny IFP on Appeal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.06\McGhee744_coa-deny.wpd 2

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. Petitioner’s

request for a certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. (Docket No. 37.) 

Petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Docket No. 36) 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). 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 36 and 37.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____________________ JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

8/8/08

Case 5:06-cv-00744-JF Document 39 Filed 08/12/08 Page 2 of 2