Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02457/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02457-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL PIZANA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A.P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-2457 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING 

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. 

Petitioner has filed a timely notice of appeal of the ruling denying the petition and has

moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. 

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). Although petitioner has not requested a certfiicate

of appealability, the notice of appeal will be treated as such a request. See United States

v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

///

Case 4:05-cv-02457-PJH Document 23 Filed 02/04/10 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

For the reasons set out in the order denying the petition, jurists of reason would not

find the result debatable or wrong. Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability

inferred from the notice of appeal (document number 15 on the docket) is DENIED.

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

Appeals. See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.

1997). Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see R.App.P.

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

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

Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal (document number 22) is

DENIED without prejudice to renewing it if the Court of Appeals grants a COA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2010 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.05\PIZANA2457.COA.wpd

Case 4:05-cv-02457-PJH Document 23 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2