Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_98-cv-01859/USCOURTS-azd-2_98-cv-01859-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Lynn Bible, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-1859-PHX-PGR

DEATH PENALTY CASE

 ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

 

The Court has denied Petitioner Richard Bible’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In the event Petitioner appeals from this Court’s judgment, and in the interests of conserving

scarce Criminal Justice Act funds that might be consumed drafting an application for a

certificate of appealability to this Court, the Court on its own initiative has evaluated the

claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal

is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall” either issue a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) or state the reasons why such a certificate should not

issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can be

established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that

matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner” or that the

Case 2:98-cv-01859-PGR Document 106 Filed 07/26/07 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

issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For

procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate (1) whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the court’s

procedural ruling was correct. Id.

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate its resolution of the issues set

forth in Claim 20. The Court therefore grants a certificate of appealability as to these issues.

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum of Decision and Order filed

simultaneously on this date, as well as the Order regarding the procedural status of

Petitioner’s claims filed on September 2, 2004 (Dkt. 79), the Court declines to issue a

certificate of appealability with respect to the remaining claims and procedural issues.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court grants a Certificate of Appealability as

to the following issue:

Whether Claim 20, alleging a violation of Petitioner’s right to effective

assistance of counsel at the sentencing stage of trial, fails on the merits.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:98-cv-01859-PGR Document 106 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 2