Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00222/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00222-5/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARI MARIE COLE, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

ALBERTO GONZALEZ, ) 

 )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00222-LJO-TAG-HC

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an application for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 3, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which

were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days. (Doc. 12). Petitioner filed objections on

April 21, 2008. (Doc. 13). On April 29, 2008, the Court entered an order adopting the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations and dismissing Petitioner's application for a

writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 14). Judgment was entered on April 29, 2008. (Doc. 15).

On May 20, 2008, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal of the district court's order. (Doc.

16). Although no express request was made for a certificate of appealability, the notice of

appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request for a certificate. See United States v. Asrar, 108

F.3d 217, 218 (9th Cir. 1997); Fed. R.App. P. 22(b). The requirement that a petitioner seek a

Case 1:06-cv-00222-LJO-TAG Document 17 Filed 06/11/08 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 2

certificate of appealability is a gate-keeping mechanism that protects the Court of Appeals from

having to devote resources to frivolous issues, while at the same time affording petitioners an

opportunity to persuade the Court that, through full briefing and argument, the potential merit of

claims may appear. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000). However, a

state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district

court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2253, provides as

follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district

judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the

circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity

of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person

charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such

person's detention pending removal proceedings.

(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may

not be taken to the court of appeals from--

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue

or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

Accordingly, final orders issued by a federal district court in habeas corpus proceedings

are reviewable by the circuit court of appeals, and, in order to have final orders reviewed, a

petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. This Court will issue a

certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must

establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

Case 1:06-cv-00222-LJO-TAG Document 17 Filed 06/11/08 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 3

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that Petitioner has not shown an

entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00222-LJO-TAG Document 17 Filed 06/11/08 Page 3 of 3