Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02276/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02276-3/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

EDWARD DAVID JONES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-2276 LKK DAD P 

vs.

JOSEPH McGRATH, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

from this court's July 7, 2006, order denying 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

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 

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02276-LKK -DAD Document 46 Filed 11/28/06 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

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

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002).

2

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)).

1

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

with respect to the following issues presented in his petition for writ of habeas corpus: 

(1) whether his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the improper

admission of evidence violated his right to a fair trial; (3) whether restrictions imposed by the

trial court on the cross-examination of a prosecution witness violated his rights to confrontation

and a fair trial; (4) whether jury instruction error violated his right to due process; and (5)

whether the cumulative effect of errors at his trial violated his right to due process and a fair trial.

On August 3, 2006, petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal. The court file reflects that petitioner paid the filing fee for this action. 

Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party to a

district court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion in the

district court which:

(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of

Forms the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and

costs;

(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and

(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(2). In addition, Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms requires a prisoner to

attach a certified prison trust account statement showing all receipts, expenditures and balances

during the last six months. 

Petitioner has attached an affidavit which demonstrates his inability to pay or to

give security for fees and costs. He also claims entitlement to redress and describes the issues he

Case 2:02-cv-02276-LKK -DAD Document 46 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 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

3

intended to present on appeal. However, petitioner has not attached a certified copy of his prison

trust account statement for the past six months. Because petitioner has not complied with all of

the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will

be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A certificate of appealability is issued in the present action; and

2. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in appeal is denied.

DATED: November 27, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-02276-LKK -DAD Document 46 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 3