Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01256/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01256-4/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

RONALD DENNIS BLAMEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1256 LKK DAD P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

this court's March 14, 2008 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

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01256-LKK -DAD Document 54 Filed 04/16/08 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

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

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 prosecution improperly

failed to disclose evidence favorable to the defense; (2) whether his appellate counsel rendered

ineffective assistance; (3) whether his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (4)

whether evidentiary rulings by the trial court deprived him of the right to present a complete

defense. Petitioner has also filed a document entitled “motion to amend the judgement,” in

which he challenges this court’s failure to order discovery and hold an evidentiary hearing on his

claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. This motion will be denied without prejudice to

its renewal in the 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 March 21, 2008 “motion to amend the judgement” is denied

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

DATED: April 15, 2008

/blamey1256.coa

Case 2:04-cv-01256-LKK -DAD Document 54 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 2