Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02302/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02302-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS EUGENE AGUIRRE, No. CIV-S-99-2302 MCE JFM P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

SUZAN HUBBARD, WARDEN, 

ET AL., 

Respondents.

__________________________/

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a notice of appeal of this court's February 24, 2005 denial

of his application for a writ of habeas corpus together with an

application for a certificate of appealability. See 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. 

Case 2:99-cv-02302-MCE -JFM Document 37 Filed 04/18/05 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be 1

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

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

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 issue presented in the

instant action: Whether his sentence of twenty-five years to life

in prison constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation

of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For

the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s January 21, 2005

findings and recommendations, Petitioner has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with

respect to the other two claims raised in this action concerning

alleged denials of his right to self-representation.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s March 18, 2005 application for a

certificate of appealability is granted in part and denied in

part.

///

Case 2:99-cv-02302-MCE -JFM Document 37 Filed 04/18/05 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

3

2. A certificate of appealability is issued in the present

action for petitioner’s claim that his prison sentence violates

the Eighth Amendment.

3. A certificate of appealability is not issued with respect

to petitioner’s other two claims raised in this action concerning

alleged denials of his right to self-representation.

DATED: April 18, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:99-cv-02302-MCE -JFM Document 37 Filed 04/18/05 Page 3 of 3