Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01960/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01960-1/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

OMAR SHARRIEFF GAY,

Petitioner, 

 v.

M. EVANS, Warden, and J.

WOODFORD, Director,

Respondents. /

No. C 06-1960 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The petition was denied on the

merits on April 11, 2008. Petitioner has filed a timely notice of appeal and a motion for a

certificate of appealability. 

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

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

Case 3:06-cv-01960-WHA Document 16 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

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner contended that: (1) his due process and

double jeopardy rights were violated when the Board used his conduct in prison as a basis to

deny him parole; (2) his due process and free speech rights were violated when the Board would

not allow him to question them; (3) there was not sufficient evidence to support the Board’s

finding that his offense was “egregious” and “cruel;” and (4) his equal protection and due

process rights were violated by the Board’s failure to follow statutes and regulations setting the

term he should serve. 

Three of these claims were clearly without merit, but the first one was based on the state

parole statute which allows the Board to deny a parole date if “it determines that the gravity of

the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted

offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy

period of incarceration for this individual . . . .” See Cal. Penal Code § 3041(b). That is, the

statute appears to limit the evidence that the Board can consider in denying parole to the

circumstances of the offence or evidence of prior offences, and petitioner’s claim was that in his

case the Board considered post-offense evidence and in doing so violated a due process right

created by the statute. The Court’s reasoning in rejecting this claim was, at heart, that the state

courts have determined that the statute does not mean what it says and that the Board can

consider post-offense conduct, so the predicate for petitioner’s federal claim – a state-law

violation – was not present. But petitioner’s argument is an original one and one which

reasonable jurists might find debatable. Therefore the motion for a certificate of appealability is

GRANTED as to this issue. It is DENIED as to the other issues. 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.06\GAY960.COA.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-01960-WHA Document 16 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 2