Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01926/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01926-1/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

JOHN P. ALANDER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-1926 LKK JFM P

vs.

JOE MCGRATH, WARDEN,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

this court's April 26, 2005 denial of 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-01926-LKK -JFM Document 27 Filed 06/07/05 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

1

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

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

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

 Petitioner also sought a certificate of appealability on the following issue: “Shackling

petitioner throughout the entire trial was highly prejudicial and unconstitutional.” (Application at

2.) However, petitioner did not raise a shackling issue in the instant petition. Thus, the court

will not grant a certificate for the shackling issue.

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 in

the following issues presented in the instant petition: denial of his motion to continue the trial 

and by the trial court’s denial of his right to proceed pro se in violation of Faretta v. California,

422 U.S. 806 (1975).2 Petitioner will be granted a certificate as to those two issues.

In addition, on May 16, 2005, petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides as follows:

a party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the

district court action. . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis

without further authorization, unless . . . the district court . . .

certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the

party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis . . . . 

Fed. R. App. 24(a)(3). Since the district court has not certified that petitioner's appeal is not

taken in good faith and granted petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on September 23,

2002, petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied as

unnecessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is

issued in the present action.

DATED: June 6, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/alan1926.830

Case 2:02-cv-01926-LKK -JFM Document 27 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 2