Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01818/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01818-3/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LEON DEW,

Petitioner, No. C 07-1818 PJH

v.

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a state prisoner. On October

26, 2007, this court denied Dew’s petition on the merits. Before the court is Dew’s notice of

appeal, which this court will also construe as a request for a certificate of appealability

(“COA”). 

To obtain a COA, Dew must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “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). Section 2253(c)(3) requires a court granting a

COA to indicate which issues satisfy the COA standard. Here, the court finds that the three

issues presented by Dew in his petition meet the above standard and accordingly GRANTS

the COA as to those issues. See generally Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322

(2003). Those issues include Dew’s claims:

Case 4:07-cv-01818-PJH Document 23 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

1) that the state court’s decision to uphold the California Board of Parole

Hearings’ (“Board”) denial of parole was not supported by sufficient evidence

and was an unreasonable application of clearly established United States

Supreme Court law; 

2) that the unsuitability criteria the Board relied on to find him unsuitable for

parole are unconstitutionally vague; and

3) that the Board violated the terms of his plea agreement by failing to set his

parole date.

Dew’s accompanying application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is

GRANTED.

Accordingly, the clerk shall forward the file, including a copy of this order, to the

Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270

(9th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01818-PJH Document 23 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 2