Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01610/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01610-2/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

- 1 - O5CV1610 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENALDO E. GIBSON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05CV1610 WQH (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE

vs. OF APPEALABILITY

MARK SHEPARD,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

On August 12, 2005, Petitioner Renaldo E. Gibson (Gibson) filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. (Doc. # 1). On March 6, 2006, Magistrate Judge Major issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the district court deny the petition. (Doc. # 25). On October 2, 2006, this Court

adopted Magistrate Judge Major’s Report and Recommendation and denied Gibson’s petition for writ

of habeas corpus. (Doc. # 31). On November 1, 2006, Gibson filed a notice of appeal and a motion

for certificate of appealability. (Docs. # 33, 34).

A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To this end, it must appear that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the petitioner’s constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). “Upon the filing of a notice

of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability, the district court shall indicate which specific

issue or issues satisfy the standard for issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should

Case 3:05-cv-01610-WQH-BLM Document 35 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 2
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 - O5CV1610 WQH (BLM)

not be granted.” United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997), citing 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(3).

Although the Court denied Gibson’s habeas petition on the merits, the Court finds that Gibson

raised colorable constitutional arguments with respect to his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel

under the Sixth Amendment.

[T]he issuance of a COA is not precluded where the petitioner cannot meet the

standard to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. . . .This general principle reflects the fact

that the COA requirement constitutes a gatekeeping mechanism that prevents [an

appellate court] from devoting judicial resources on frivolous issues while at the same

time affording habeas petitioners an opportunity to persuade [the appellate court] . .

. of the potential merit of issues that may appear, at first glance, to lack merit.

Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted); see also

Jefferson v. Welborn, 222 F.3d 286, 289 (7th Cir. 2000) (a COA should issue unless the claims are

“utterly without merit”). The Court concludes that Gibson’s claims are not frivolous and make a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Gibson’s

motion for a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 20, 2006

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01610-WQH-BLM Document 35 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 2