Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02513/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02513-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON L. SANTIFER, No. 2:05-cv-02513-MCE-GGH P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

M. EVANS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this

court's January 31, 2008, denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner

can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The

certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02513-MCE -GGH Document 27 Filed 03/14/08 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

1

Petitioner has made a showing adequate to proceed further concerning the denial of a

constitutional right in the following issues presented in the instant petition: 1) whether the state

court violated petitioner’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by excluding petitioner’s

spontaneous statement to a friend minutes after the shooting that he shot the victim because the

victim was trying to kill him; 2) whether the state court violated petitioner’s Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights by prohibiting reference to matters of common knowledge in closing

argument.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is issued in the

present action.

Dated: March 13, 2008

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02513-MCE -GGH Document 27 Filed 03/14/08 Page 2 of 2