Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02119/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02119-0/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

1

 On June 15, 2006, Petitioner filed a second Notice of Appeal. [Doc. No. 29.] Because this

Court already received Petitioner’s first Notice of Appeal, this second notice is unnecessary. 

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES from the docket Petitioner’s second Notice of Appeal. [Doc. No. 29.] 

1 04cv2119 J (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES KLINGER,

Petitioner,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv2119 J (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR COA [Doc. No. 32];

(2) STRIKING PETITIONER’S

SECOND NOTICE OF APPEAL

[Doc. No. 29]; and

(3) DISMISSING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME [Doc.

No. 30]

On May 11, 2006, this Court issued an Order adopting Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes’

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and denying Petitioner James Klinger’s (“Petitioner”)

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). [Doc. Nos. 27, 1.] On June 14, 2006, Petitioner

filed a Notice of Appeal.1

 [Doc. No. 28.] On June 26, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion for

Enlargement of Time; on that same day, Petitioner also filed a Motion for a Certificate of

Case 3:04-cv-02119-J-NLS Document 37 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 In contrast, if the habeas petition has been denied on procedural grounds, the Supreme Court

has determined the petitioner must instead overcome two hurdles to obtain a COA. See Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85. The petitioner must first show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,” and second show “that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484.

2 04cv2119 J (NLS)

Appealability (“COA”). [Doc. Nos. 30, 32.] Because this Court received Petitioner’s COA on

the same day Petitioner filed the Motion for Enlargement of Time, this Court DISMISSES as

moot Petitioner’s Motion for Enlargement of Time. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

also DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for a COA. 

Legal Standard

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132,

110 Stat. 1214 (1996) (“AEDPA”), a state prisoner may not appeal the denial of a habeas

petition unless she or he obtains a COA from a district or circuit judge. See 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); see also United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1997)

(holding that district courts retain authority to issue a COA under the AEDPA). 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 court may issue a COA only if the applicant has made a “substantial showing” of the

denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). If a habeas petition has been

denied on the merits, the Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong.”2

 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Discussion

In its Order denying the Petition, this Court rejected Petitioner’s Petition on the merits. 

(See Order Denying Pet at 8, 9, 11.) In his COA, Petitioner asks the Court to review the

following issues: (1) that the California Court of Appeal violated Petitioner’s Fourteenth

Amendment due process rights when it refused to order specific performance of the original plea

Case 3:04-cv-02119-J-NLS Document 37 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3 04cv2119 J (NLS)

agreement; and (2) that Petitioner’s counsel violated Petitioner’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights when he turned over an incriminating videotape to the prosecutor. (See

Pet’r’s COA at 2.) 

In his COA, Petitioner cites to Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404-05 (2000), to argue

that this Court and the Magistrate Judge’s decisions contradict federal law. (See Pet’r’s COA at

1.) However, Petitioner’s argument fails because he does not explain how this citation shows

that the denial of his Petition was erroneous. Moreover, this citation is irrelevant to the case at

hand becaue it is to a concurring opinion, in which Justice O’Conner criticizes Justice Stevens’

interpretation in the majority opinion of the words “contrary to” and “unreasonable application”

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Williams, 529 U.S. at 404-05. This citation does not show

that the Court or the Magistrate Judge’s decisions contradict federal law. 

Petitioner also contends that the “legal and factual misinterpretation by the District Court

and Magistrate is disputable within the meaning of Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).” 

(See Pet’r’s COA at 1.) This argument also fails because Petitioner does not elaborate on his

argument or cite to a particular passage in Slack to support his proposition. Slack concerns when

and how a habeas prisoner should apply for a certificate of appealability. See Slack, 529 U.S. at

481. While Petitioner and this Court agree that the Slack standard applies to the instance case,

the application of this standard to a motion for a COA does not support the argument that

Petitioner was denied a constitutional right. 

 In his COA, Petitioner contends that the California Court of Appeal’s refusal to order

specific performance of his plea agreement violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process

rights. (See Pet’r’s COA at 2.) However, Petitioner has not demonstrated that “reasonable

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Because specific enforcement of the original plea agreement is

not constitutionally required, this Court correctly found that the refusal to order specific

performance does not amount to a due process violation. (See Order Denying Pet. at 6-7) (citing

Marby v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 511 n.11 (1984)) (holding that specific performance of a plea

agreement is not constitutionally required)). 

Case 3:04-cv-02119-J-NLS Document 37 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4 04cv2119 J (NLS)

The Court also correctly rejected Petitioner’s related claim that he detrimentally relied on

the prosecutor’s promise to recommend a lighter sentence in exchange for Petitioner turning over

a videotape. (See Order Denying Pet. at 7.) Petitioner claims that he gave the videotape to the

prosecution, but the prosecution’s subsequent disavowal of the plea agreement violated his rights

to due process. (See id.) However, the record does not support his claim. Petitioner’s counsel

did not provide the prosecution with the videotape until after Petitioner had withdrawn his guilty

plea. (See id.) As a result, Petitioner could not have detrimentally relied on the plea agreement. 

Petitioner next asserts that his counsel violated Petitioner’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights when Petitioner’s counsel turned over the incriminating videotape to

prosecutors. Again, Petitioner does not show how “reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. The

Court correctly found that for the admission of a videotape to violate a defendant’s Fifth

Amendment right against self-incrimination, the defendant must show that the videotape is

testimonial in nature and that it was obtained by compulsion from the defendant. (See Order

Denying Pet. at 10) (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761 (1966) (holding that the

Fifth Amendment protects the accused from being compelled to testify)). See also Fisher v.

United States, 425 U.S. 391, 398-399 (1976) (holding there was no compulsion when

defendants’ attorneys, rather than defendants themselves, relinquished incriminating documents). 

The Court properly applied this rule to hold that Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights were not

violated because the videotape was not testimonial in nature and was obtained from Petitioner’s

attorney, rather than from Petitioner. (See Order Denying Pet. at 10.) Furthermore, Petitioner’s

Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated because Petitioner did

not demonstrate how his “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness” when the trial court compelled counsel to turn over the evidence. (See Order

Denying Pet. at 9) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)). Finally, as

stated above, Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were not violated. 

Accordingly, this Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for COA because Petitioner has not

Case 3:04-cv-02119-J-NLS Document 37 Filed 09/25/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5 04cv2119 J (NLS)

demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment debatable or

wrong. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, this Court STRIKES Petitioner’s second Notice of Appeal,

DISMISSES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Motion for Enlargement of Time, and DENIES

Petitioner’s Motion for a COA. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 25, 2006

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes 

 

 All Parties

 Clerk of Court Samuel Hamrick

Case 3:04-cv-02119-J-NLS Document 37 Filed 09/25/06 Page 5 of 5