Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02167/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-02167-0/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

03cv2167

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOUNTHANOM NA DIDYAVONG,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL YARBOROUGH, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 03cv2167 JAH(WMc)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 24, 2006, this Court entered an order adopting the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny the instant petition in its entirety. See

Doc. # 62. Petitioner, on September 11, 2006, filed a notice of appeal of this Court’s

August 24, 2006 order along with a motion seeking a certificate of appealability.

A state prisoner may not appeal the denial of a Section 2254 habeas petition unless he

obtains a certificate of appealability (“COA”) from a district or circuit judge. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1997)

(holding that district courts retain authority to issue Certificates of Appealability for

Section 2254 cases). In deciding whether to grant a COA, a court must either indicate the

specific issues supporting a certificate or state reasons why a certificate is not warranted. See

Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. A COA is authorized “only if the applicant has made a substantial

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

Case 3:03-cv-02167-JAH-WMC Document 66 Filed 09/13/06 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 03cv2167

threshold “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” Petitioner must show

that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; or (2) that a court could resolve the

issues in a different manner; or (3) that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement

to proceed further. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000)(citing Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)). 

Here, the magistrate judge, after a thorough analysis of petitioner’s claims, recommended

that the instant petition be denied on its merits in its entirety. Neither party filed objections

to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions presented in the report and recommendation.

This Court, after conducting a de novo review of the record, independently reviewing the

magistrate judge’s report and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, agreed with the

magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions and recommendations concerning the merits of

petitioner’s claims and adopted them in full.

Petitioner now presents eight issues he intends to present on appeal, essentially

reasserting the claims he presented in his petition and subsequent pleadings. After a thorough

review of these contentions and the record as a whole, this Court finds that none of petitioner’s

contentions present a question of substance debatable among jurists, could be resolved in a

different manner, or deserve to proceed further. Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1024-25. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is

DENIED.

DATED: September 13, 2006

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02167-JAH-WMC Document 66 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 2