Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01893/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01893-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

ANDREW CORTEZ CRATER, No. CIV-S-01-1893 MCE/GGH P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

GEORGE GALAZA, WARDEN, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a notice of appeal of this court's September 30, 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).

///

Case 2:01-cv-01893-MCE -GGH Document 49 Filed 10/17/05 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 1

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

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

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: 1) Whether the petitioner’s state jury trial

judge displayed an appearance of bias when he expressly stated

before trial that he believed petitioner was guilty; 2) Whether

the state appellate court acted in an objectively unreasonable

manner and/or a manner contrary to Supreme Court precedent in not

finding that the state trial court’s refusal to change venue in

petitioner’s case was constitutional error; 3) Whether cognizable

constitutional error occurred in connection with the state trial

court’s special circumstance jury instructions; 4) Whether AEDPA

is unconstitutional. 

///

Case 2:01-cv-01893-MCE -GGH Document 49 Filed 10/17/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of

appealability is issued in the present action.

DATED: October 14, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-01893-MCE -GGH Document 49 Filed 10/17/05 Page 3 of 3