Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02067/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02067-8/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

TRAVIS D. REAY,

Petitioner, 2:02-cv-2067-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's March 3, 2008 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus and a request to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of

appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

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 2:02-cv-02067-GEB-DAD Document 63 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 3
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 has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in

the following issues presented in the instant petition: (1) whether the trial court violated his right

to due process by denying his motion to sever his trial from that of co-defendant Nettie Reay; (2)

whether his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to request a limiting

instruction regarding evidence of Battered Woman’s Syndrome; (3) whether his right to a fair

trial was violated by improper cross-examination conducted by trial counsel for co-defendant

Nettie Reay; (4) whether his right to a fair trial was violated by juror misconduct, the inadequacy

of the trial court’s voir dire and the refusal of the trial court to dismiss a juror; (5) whether his

right to due process was violated by jury instruction error; (6) whether his right to a fair trial was

violated because of the jury’s exposure to evidence of his prior acts of domestic violence against

Nettie Reay; (7) whether his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to object

to the admission of evidence of Battered Woman’s Syndrome; (8) whether his right to a fair trial

was violated by the cumulative effect of the errors described in claims (1) through (7); (9)

whether the prosecutor committed misconduct during his closing argument; (10) whether his trial

counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to object to the prosecutorial misconduct

in closing argument; (11) whether his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because of his

failure to call petitioner’s sister as a witness to testify in support of petitioner’s alibi defense; (12)

whether newly discovered evidence demonstrates that he is factually innocent; and (13) whether

the California Court of Appeal improperly denied his motion for state habeas counsel. 

Petitioner has also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

Petitioner applied for and was granted in forma pauperis status in this action. Accordingly, he is 

Case 2:02-cv-02067-GEB-DAD Document 63 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal without further authorization. Fed. R. App. P.

24(a)(3). Petitioner’s request will therefore be denied as unnecessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A certificate of appealability is issued in the present action; and

2. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied as

unnecessary.

Dated: April 21, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02067-GEB-DAD Document 63 Filed 04/22/08 Page 3 of 3