Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01463/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01463-1/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

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.02\Hardaway1463.COADeny.ECK

.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONNY RAY HARDAWAY, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

M. YARBOROUGH, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-1463 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Docket No. 74)

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The

petition was denied in an order entered on November 2, 2006, and judgment was entered

that day. Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal. Although he does not request a

certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal will be deemed a request for the

certificate. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

DISCUSSION 

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of

probable cause to appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall

grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing

**Original filed 1/11/07**

Case 5:02-cv-01463-JF Document 76 Filed 01/11/07 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

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.02\Hardaway1463.COADeny.ECK

2

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate must

indicate which issues satisfy this standard. Id. § 2253(c)(3). 

“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). 

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” section

2253(c)(2) codified the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983). See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483. In

Barefoot, the Court explained that “a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal

right” means that a petitioner “must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among

jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner], or that the

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Barefoot, 463 U.S.

at 893 n.4 (citations and internal quotations omitted; emphasis in original). Any doubts

about whether the Barefoot standard has been met must be resolved in petitioner’s favor. 

Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000).

The Court denied the instant habeas petition after careful consideration of the

merits. The Court found no violation of Petitioner’s federal constitutional rights in the

underlying state court proceedings. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its ruling. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s notice of appeal, which the Court construes as a request for a certificate of

appealability (docket no. 74) is DENIED. The Clerk shall transmit the file, including a

copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals

to issue the certificate. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

1/11/07

Case 5:02-cv-01463-JF Document 76 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2