Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05437/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05437-1/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)

---

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

OAKLAND DIVISION

ANTHONY PEREZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden, and BOARD OF

PRISON TERMS,

Respondents. /

No. C 06-5437 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The

petition was directed to a denial of parole on April 27, 2005. The court denied the petition

in an order entered on December 8, 2008. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. 

At the time petitioner filed his notice of appeal, petitioners whose challenges to a

parole denial had been rejected did not have to obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”)

in order to appeal. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2005). Rosas was

overruled as to this point in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc),

so a COA is now necessary. See id. at 552-55. The court of appeals has remanded the

case for the court to determine whether a COA should issue.

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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

Case 4:06-cv-05437-PJH Document 15 Filed 07/12/10 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

 Petitioner’s claims were that: (1) The Board’s denial of parole violated his due

process rights because it was the seventh denial based on the circumstances of the

offense and because the denial was not supported by “some evidence” that he would be a

danger to society if released; and (2) the denial violated his plea agreement. 

A COA will be issued as to the “some evidence” portion of claim one because the

facts upon which the denial was based were nearly twenty years old, and reasonable jurists

might find it debatable whether such old facts constituted “some evidence” of present

dangerousness. A COA is denied as to the plea bargain issue and the “Biggs claim” issue

for the reasons set out in the order denying the petition. 

The certificate of appealability is GRANTED as described above. The clerk shall

transmit the record and a copy of this order to the Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.06\PEREZ437.COA.wpd 

Case 4:06-cv-05437-PJH Document 15 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2