Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03975/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03975-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN JESUS HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner, 

 v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-3975 WHA (PR) 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

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

petition was denied in an order entered on April 22, 2008. Judgment was entered that day. 

Petitioner has filed a timely notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability

("COA").

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without

first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of probable cause to

appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 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

Case 3:06-cv-03975-WHA Document 20 Filed 05/28/08 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

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

This was not a close case. For the reasons set out in the order denying the petition,

reasonable jurists would not find the result debatable or wrong. Petitioner’s motion for a

certificate of appealability (document number 18 on the docket) is DENIED.

The clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the court of appeals. 

See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Petitioner may then ask the court of appeals to issue the certificate, see R.App.P. 22(b)(1), or if

he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see R.App.P. 22(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.06\HERNANDEZ975.COA.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-03975-WHA Document 20 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 2