Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00855/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00855-4/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID ARTHUR DEPONTE, ) 

 Petitioner, ) CASE NO. CIV S-07-0855 BJR 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

 ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

T. FELKER, Warden, et al. ) 

 Respondent. ) 

____________________________________________________________

 This matter comes before the court on Petitioner’s Request for a Certificate of 

Appealability. (Dkt. No. 25.) The court hereby DENIES the request, for the reasons described 

below.

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

appeal of this court’s July 8, 2009 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. 

No. 22.) Before Petitioner can appeal this decision, a certification of appealability must issue. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. APP. P. 22(b).1

 A certificate of appealability is required to appeal “the final order in a habeas proceeding 

in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court.” See Wilson v. 

1

 Petitioner filed directly with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Dkt. No. 24.) The Appellate 

Commissioner remanded to this Court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certification of appealability. 

Id.

Case 2:07-cv-00855-BJR Document 27 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Bellequ, 554 F.3d 816, 824 (9th Cir. 2009). A district court may issue a certificate “only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2). See also Belleque, 554 F.3d at 825–26. The certificate-of-appealability requirement 

“constitutes a gatekeeping mechanism that prevents [federal courts] from devoting judicial 

resources on frivolous issues while at the same time affording habeas petitioners an opportunity 

to persuade [courts] through briefing and argument of the potential merit of issues that may 

appear, at first glance, to lack merit.” Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000).

 “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). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack

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

 Petitioner alleged in his habeas petition that he was denied his constitutionally guaranteed 

right to the effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to produce certain 

witnesses at trial and failed to properly impeach other witnesses. The merits of Petitioner’s 

claims are squarely governed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). First, Petitioner must show that his trial attorney’s performance 

was deficient. Id. at 687. Second, he must show that the deficient performance prejudiced his 

defense. Id. To establish ineffectiveness, a “defendant must show that counsel’s representation 

fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. To establish prejudice he “must 

Case 2:07-cv-00855-BJR Document 27 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 3
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

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 

U.S. District Court Judge 

show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the 

outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694.

 The State Court adjudicated Petitioner’s claims on the merits.2

 With respect to 

Petitioner’s argument that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to produce certain 

witnesses at trial, the State Court held that Petitioner failed to meet the prejudice prong of the 

Strickland test. See Dkt. No. 22 at 5-11. With respect to Petitioner’s claim that his trial attorney 

failed to properly impeach several witnesses, the State Court held that Petitioner failed to 

establish that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or 

that it prejudiced Petitioner’s defense. Id. at 11-15. 

 On review, this court determined that, under the extremely limited scope of review 

afforded by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1977) and the AEDPA, the State Court’s 

application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) was proper. (Dkt. No. 22, at 4-17.)

This court may not review the State Court’s decision de novo. Rather, this court is limited to a 

deferential review of the State Court’s adjudication which this court does not hold to be 

objectively unreasonable. The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would 

find this court’s assessment of Petitioner’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, 

he has failed to meet his burden under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 

 DATED this 22 day of February, 2010. 

2

 Petitioner filed his habeas petition in the Sacramento County Superior Court. The Court denied the petition and 

Petitioner filed a second petition with the California Court of Appeal. The California Court of Appeal issued an 

order to show cause returning the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court and directed the Superior Court to 

appoint counsel for petitioner. An evidentiary hearing was held on January 27, 2006. The Superior Court entered an 

order denying the petition on February 16, 2006. 

/s/ Barbara Jacobs Rothstein

Case 2:07-cv-00855-BJR Document 27 Filed 02/23/10 Page 3 of 3