Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01419/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01419-0/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

27

28

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability 

1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLVIN MCCRIGHT, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOE MCGRATH,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-1419 JW (PR)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging the failure of the California Department of Corrections

to provide him with conduct credits. On March 13, 2006, the Court granted Respondent’s

motion to dismiss and dismissed the instant habeas petition for failure to exhaust. On March 23,

2006, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The Court construes the notice of appeal as a request

for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)) and Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22(b). See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). The

Court denies the certificate of appealability.

DISCUSSION

Upon the filing of a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability

(COA), the district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for

Case 5:04-cv-01419-JW Document 29 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 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

26

27

28

 1 Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see Fed. R. App. P.

22(b)(1), or if he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b)(2).

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability 

2

issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted. See United

States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3)). 

The Court dismissed the instant petition for failure to exhaust. Petitioner has not shown

“that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the

denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604

(2000). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the certificate of appealability.

The Clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).1

DATED: April __, 2006 JAMES WARE

 United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jw\HC.04\mccright1419coa.wpd

Case 5:04-cv-01419-JW Document 29 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 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

26

27

28

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability 

3

This is to certify that this order was mailed to the following:

Anya Binsacca

Elizabeth S. Kim

Office of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Colvin McCright

Pelican Bay State Prison

5905 Lake Earl Drive

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532

dated: _________________ CLERK OF COURT

By: ___/s/JW Chambers__________

Melissa Peralta

Deputy Clerk

Case 5:04-cv-01419-JW Document 29 Filed 04/18/06 Page 3 of 3