Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00477/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00477-0/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

08cv0477

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY LORRAINE GRIGGS,

Petitioner,

v.

DAWN S. DAVISON, Warden; JAMES

E. TILTON, Secretary,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08CV0477 JAH(NLS)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY [DOC. # 20]

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, has filed an application for a certificate of appealibility

following this Court’s denial of the petition and petitioner’s subsequent notice of appeal.

A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this standard,

petitioner must show that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; or (2) that

a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the questions are

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d

1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Slack v. Mc Daniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); Barefoot

v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)). Petitioner does not have to show “that he should prevail

on the merits [since he] has already failed in that endeavor.” Lambright, 220 F.3d at

1025 (citing Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n. 4).

Case 3:08-cv-00477-JAH-NLS Document 21 Filed 12/03/08 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

2 08cv0477

Here, the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus finding petitioner’s

sole claim for relief, that is, whether the trial court erred in imposing an upper term

sentence without a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt the facts necessary for an

increase above the presumptive middle term. See Docs. # 15, 16; Cunningham v.

California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007); Apprendi v. New York, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

Specifically, this Court agreed with the magistrate judge’s determination that petitioner’s

prior conviction fits within the “prior conviction” exception to the rule regarding jury

findings for increased sentences. See Doc. # 16 at 3 (citing Butler v. Curry 528 F.3d 624,

644-645 (9th Cir. 2008)(defining the “outer bounds of the ‘prior conviction’ exception

after Apprendi.”)). Petitioner did not file objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendation. Therefore, based on the Court’s de novo review of the record, this Court

determined the magistrate judge’s analysis was well-reasoned and adopted it in toto. 

Petitioner now claims she did not receive notice of the filing of the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation causing her to be unaware of the deadline for filing

objections in violation of her due process rights. See Doc. # 20 at 2. However, this Court

notes that petitioner does not present argument or evidence to rebut the findings and

conclusions presented by the magistrate judge and adopted by this Court as to the

disposition of petitioner’s sole claim for relief. Under these circumstances, this Court finds

that an analysis of petitioner’s claim is not an issue debatable among jurists of reason nor

could any other court resolve the issue in a different manner warranting the issuance of

a certificate of appealability. See Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1024-25. Accordingly,

petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DATED: December 3, 2008

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00477-JAH-NLS Document 21 Filed 12/03/08 Page 2 of 2