Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500-57/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

GERALD F. STANLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-95-1500 FCD GGH DP

vs.

ROBERT S. AYERS, Acting Warden

of San Quentin State Prison,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has timely filed a notice

of appeal of this court's March 17, 2008, order denying petitioner’s guilt phase claims. Partial

judgment was entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) following this order. 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).

/////

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 857 Filed 11/06/08 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

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

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

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s August 29, 2007, findings and

recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right as to his claim that he was denied a full and fair state court hearing on his motion to

suppress illegally obtained evidence.

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in

the following issues: 

1. Whether this court erred in ordering the state court to determine the feasability

of retrospective competency hearing in lieu of a federal finding that such hearing was not

feasible.

2. Whether this court erred in not ruling upon all claims presented by the

operative habeas petition.

3. Whether this court erred in denying relief on petitioner’s claim regarding the

trial court’s failure to order a competency inquiry sua sponte.

4. Whether this court erred in denying relief on petitioner’s claim that trial

counsel were ineffective for failing to initiate timely competency proceedings.

5. Whether this court erred in denying relief on petitioner’s claim that trial

counsel were ineffective for failing to raise a diminished capacity defense.

/////

/////

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 857 Filed 11/06/08 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 as to the five claims set forth above. 

DATED: November 05, 2008.

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 857 Filed 11/06/08 Page 3 of 3