Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20471/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20471-0/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)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHNNY GILBERT GOMEZ,

Petitioner(s),

 v.

JAMES HAMLET, Warden,

Respondent(s). /

NO. C 01-20471 JW 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 26, 2005, the Court denied the petition on the merits. On

August 29, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability. 

The Court denies Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability.

DISCUSSION

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). 

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, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

Case 5:01-cv-20471-JW Document 33 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” section 2253(c)(2)

codified the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.

880, 892-93 (1983). In Barefoot, the Court explained that “a substantial showing of the denial of [a]

federal right” means that a petitioner “must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists

of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner], or that the questions are

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4 (citations and

internal quotations omitted; emphasis in original). Any doubts about whether the Barefoot standard

has been met must be resolved in petitioner’s favor. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25

(9th Cir. 2000).

The Court denied the instant habeas petition after careful consideration of the merits. The

Court found no violation of Petitioner’s federal constitutional rights in the underlying state court

proceedings. 

In his request for a certificate of appealability, Petitioner contends that reasonable jurists

could find violations of his constitutional rights based upon: (1) the failure to allow crossexamination of a confidential informant; (2) the admission at trial of a "confession" made by

Petitioner without the presence of counsel; and (3) the failure of appellate counsel to challenge the

trial court’s use of his prior conviction for sentencing under the “Three Strikes” law. Having

conducted a second and independent review of Petitioner’s arguments, the Court is firmly persuaded

that the issues raised by Petitioner are not debatable among jurists of reason. Therefore, the request

for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

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

Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

Dated: April __, 2006

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jw\HC.01\gomez20471coa.wpd

 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

18

Case 5:01-cv-20471-JW Document 33 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 3
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Johnny G. Gomez

K-72622

San Quentin Prison

San Quentin, Ca 94974

Morris Beatus

California Attorney General Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Dated: April __2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/JW Chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

18

Case 5:01-cv-20471-JW Document 33 Filed 04/18/06 Page 3 of 3