Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02660/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02660-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN HOGAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-2660 LKK JFM P

vs.

JIM HAMLETT, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has timely filed a notice of

appeal of this court’s March 29, 2007 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus

together with a request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “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 of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues

satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02660-LKK -JFM Document 36 Filed 06/28/07 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

1

Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability for his first, fifth, and sixth claims

for relief. Petitioner’s first claim for relief is that his right to due process was violated because

there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Petitioner’s fifth claim for relief is that

his rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated by the prosecutor’s improper comment on

petitioner’s failure to testify. Petitioner’s sixth claim for relief is that his Sixth Amendment right

to the effective assistance of counsel was violated by his counsel’s failure to object to the

prosecutor’s comment that is the subject of his fifth claim for relief. Petitioner has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in those claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s April 2, 2007 request for a certificate of appealability is granted;

2. A certificate of appealability is issued in the present action for petitioner’s first,

fifth and sixth claims for relief; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process petitioner’s appeal to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED: June 27, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-02660-LKK -JFM Document 36 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2