Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00340/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00340-3/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

- 1 - 07cv340

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GENE MAYFIELD, JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07-CV-340 JLS (WMc)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

vs. OF APPEALABILITY

L. E. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Respondents.

Thomas Gene Mayfield, Jr. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. On December 3, 2008, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Magistrate Judge William McCurine,

Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that the Court deny the petition. (Doc. No. 25.)

The Court received Petitioner’s objections to the R&R on December 29, 2008. (Doc. No. 26.) After

considering the R&R and Petitioner’s objections, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge McCurine’s

recommendation over the objections and dismissed Petitioner’s petition. (Doc. No. 27.) On January

28, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 29.)

This Court must “construe [Petitioner’s] notice of appeal as a request for certificate of

appealability.” Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 864–65 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Sassounian v. Roe,

230 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2000)). A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2008).

“A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the

district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented

Case 3:07-cv-00340-JLS-WMC Document 30 Filed 02/03/09 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 - 07cv340

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327

(2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court must either (1) grant the

certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or (2) state why a

certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

In this case, the certificate should not issue because reasonable jurists would agree that some

evidence supports the board’s and state courts’ denial of Petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES Petitioner's requests for a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 3, 2009

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00340-JLS-WMC Document 30 Filed 02/03/09 Page 2 of 2