Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01072/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01072-7/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)

---

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 RICHARD SOTO,

12

1311 K. MENDOZA-POWERS,

14

15

16 Concurrently herewith, the Court entered judgment denying Petitioner's Petition for Writ of

17 Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Effective December 1,2009, this Court must issue or deny

18 a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Rule 11 foIl. 28

19 U.S.C. § 2254; 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court

20 DENIES certificate of appealability as to all claims asserted by Petitioner in his Petition for Writ of

21 Habeas Corpus.

22 A certificate of appealability ("COA") is authorized "if the applicant has made a substantial

23 showing of the denial ofa constitutional right." 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2). The applicant must meet

24 the "substantial showing" standard with respect to each issue he or she seeks to raise on appeal.

25 Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024 (9th Cir. 2000). "The issue of whether to grant a COA

26 'becomes somewhat more complicated where, as here, the district court dismisses the (claims) based

27 on procedural grounds.''' Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 2000), quoting Slack

28 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In that situation, this Court "must decide whether 'jurists of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

vs.

Petitioner,

Respondent.

- 1 -

CASE NO. 06-cv-lOn LSP

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

06cv I 072

Case 1:06-cv-01072-RTB -POR Document 20 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 2
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

2 II right'" and "whether 'jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct

3 II in its procedural ruling. ", Id.

4 II In this case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that Petitioner

5 II was denied a constitutional right or that the district court was not correct in its procedural ruling.

6 II Slack, 529 U.S. at 484; Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1026. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES

7 II certificate of appealability.

8

9 II Date:

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

~ ~

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Court Judge

06cv1072

Case 1:06-cv-01072-RTB -POR Document 20 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 2