Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05198/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05198-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. McCARTNEY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT AYERS, Warden,

Respondent. /

District Court No. C 06-5198 PJH 

Court of Appeals No. 08-16915

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a

certificate of appealability is necessary to appeal the denial of a habeas petition directed to

denial of parole, reversing its previous position. See Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-

55392, 2010 WL 1664977, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc) (overruling in part

White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004), and Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d

1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)). The circuit has remanded this case for the

limited purpose of determining if a certificate of appealability should issue.

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of

probable cause to appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall

grant a certificate of appealability "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 must indicate

which issues satisfy this standard. See id. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has

rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is

straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Case 4:06-cv-05198-PJH Document 23 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The offense here was particularly brutal and callous, and there also was evidence

that petitioner lacked remorse, had failed to take responsibility for the crime, and lacked

insight into his part in the offense. For the reasons set out in the order denying the petition,

jurists of reason would not find the result debatable or wrong. A certificate of appealability

is DENIED.

The clerk shall promptly transmit a copy of this order to the court of appeals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.06\MCCARTNEY198.deny coa.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-05198-PJH Document 23 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2