Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04133/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04133-3/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIEN PHAM,

Petitioner, No. C 06-4133 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY

JAMES TILTON, WARDEN,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

 

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a state prisoner. On July

6, 2007, this court denied Pham’s petition on the merits. Before the court is Pham’s

petition for a certificate of appealability (“COA”).

To obtain a COA, Pham must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected the

constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is

straightforward. “The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Section 2253(c)(3) requires a court granting a

COA to indicate which issues satisfy the COA standard. Here, the court finds that the

two issues presented by Pham in his petition meet the above standard and accordingly

GRANTS the COA as to those issues. See generally Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322

Case 4:06-cv-04133-PJH Document 14 Filed 08/03/07 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

27

28

- 2 -

 (2003). Those issues are whether Pham’s conviction violates his due process rights

based on the State’s failure to present sufficient evidence of two elements of the gang

enhancement allegation, including that:

(1) Pham possessed the requisite specific intent under California Penal

Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1); and 

(2) the “V12” gang had as one of its primary activities one of the

enumerated criminal acts under California Penal Code section

186.22, subdivision (e).

Accordingly, the clerk shall forward the file, including a copy of this order, to the

Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268,

1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pham’s accompanying application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is

DENIED without prejudice pending Pham’s submission of documents establishing that

he is entitled to proceed as such.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04133-PJH Document 14 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2