Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01251/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01251-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW L. SMELTZER,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14-cv-1251-WQH-WVG

ORDER

v.

AUDREY KING,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

Before the Court is the Motion for Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 33) filed

by Petitioner Matthew Smeltzer. 

On May 19, 2014 Petitioner commenced this action by filing a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1). On February 23, 2016, the United States Magistrate

Judge issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending this Court deny the

Petition. (ECF No. 17). On March 21, 2016, Petitioner filed objections to the Report

and Recommendation. (ECF No. 18). On November 16, 2017, the Court adopted the

Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied the Petition. (ECF No. 31). A

Clerk’s Judgment was issued stating that the Petition is denied. (ECF No. 32). On

December 1, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion for Certificate of Appealability. (ECF No.

33).

- 1 - 14-cv-1251-WQH-WVG

Case 3:14-cv-01251-WQH-WVG Document 36 Filed 12/14/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the petition presents

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

“[T]he district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for

issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted.” United

States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). A certificate should issue where

the prisoner shows that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and whether the district court

was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Upon review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s

fully-exhausted claims in his Petition are non-frivolous and debatable among reasonable

jurists. The Court grants Petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability as to the

following claims: (1) that the trial court violated Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment

right to due process when it prevented his counsel from asking expert witnesses certain

questions; (2) that the instructions given to Petitioner’s jury violated his Fourteenth

Amendment right to due process; (3) that Petitioner’s indeterminate commitment

violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection; (4) that Petitioner’s

indeterminate commitment violated his rights under the Due Process Clause, the Ex

Post Facto Clause, and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause; and (5) that

Petitioner’s indeterminate commitment violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth

Amendment.

DATED: December 14, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14-cv-1251-WQH-WVG

Case 3:14-cv-01251-WQH-WVG Document 36 Filed 12/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2