Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01142/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01142-5/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)

---

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

IVAN GALVAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-00-1142 RRB-DAD-P

vs.

ROBERT L. AYERS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner Ivan Galvan (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a notice of appeal of this Court's September 25, 2006, 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 2:00-cv-01142-RRB-DAD Document 113 Filed 07/06/07 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 his trial counsel effectively abandoned

him, resulting in a constructive denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel; (2) whether his trial

counsel has a pattern and practice of providing his clients in criminal cases with constitutionally

inadequate representation and provided Petitioner with prejudicially ineffective assistance of

counsel; (3) whether Petitioner’s due process right to a fundamentally fair trial was compromised

when the trial court refused to grant a continuance so defense counsel could present expert

testimony; (4) whether the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on the concept of

reasonable foreseeability and erroneously denied Petitioner’s request for jury instructions on third

party culpability and voluntary intoxication; (5) whether the trial judge was impartial; and (6)

whether cumulative error requires that habeas relief be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is

issued in the present action.

ENTERED this 5th day of July, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:00-cv-01142-RRB-DAD Document 113 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2