Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01571/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01571-2/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 SANTOS, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-1571 FCD JFM P

vs.

TOM MADDOCK, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

this court's July 27, 2006, 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

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

Case 2:02-cv-01571-FCD-JFM Document 35 Filed 08/21/06 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

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

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 he received ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel in a prior criminal case; (2) whether a 1986 prior conviction used

to enhance his sentence was constitutionally invalid and was therefore ineligible to be used as an

enhancement; (3) whether the state court erred in imposing a five-year sentence enhancement

based on the prior invalid 1986 conviction; (4) whether he received ineffective assistance of trial

counsel in the instant case; and (5) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct. 

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel on appeal. That request

will be denied without prejudice to its renewal in the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A certificate of appealability is issued in the present action; and

2. Petitioner’s August 11, 2006, request for the appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice to its renewal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED:August 21, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-01571-FCD-JFM Document 35 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 of 2