Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02003/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02003-5/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEELON JENKINS,

Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL S. EVANS, Warden, 

 

Respondent. /

No. C 05-2003 MHP

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

 On November 15, 2010, this court denied petitioner Keelon Jenkin’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Petitioner now applies for a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) under 28 U.S.C. section 2253. Section 2253 requires a petitioner to obtain a

COA from the district court prior to filing an appeal. A COA may issue when “the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The

“substantial showing” may be satisfied when the petitioner demonstrates “that reasonable jurists

could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the

issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).

Petitioner seeks a certificate as to all of the issues upon which this court ruled in its denial of

the writ: ineffective assistance of counsel, the adequacy of the proceedings in which petitioner

sought substitution of counsel and a claim under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 133 (1986). This

court considered the record of the state court proceedings and found that in all regards raised by

petitioner the state court reasonably resolved the issues consistent with federal constitutional law 

Case 3:05-cv-02003-MHP Document 66 Filed 01/04/11 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

based on a reasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court

proceedings. Consequently, reasonable jurists would not find the court’s assessment debatable or

wrong.

Petitioner’s request for a COA is DENIED. The Clerk shall forward the case file to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2011 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-02003-MHP Document 66 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 2