Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01823/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01823-0/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 - 07cv1823

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLAN TRACY GILMORE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV1823 DMS (JMA)

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING

PETITIONER’S REQUEST 

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

vs.

DEBRA DEXTER, et al.,

Respondents.

On November 18, 2010, this Court entered an Order denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and adopting Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler’s Report

and Recommendation. (Doc. 66.) Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and Request for Certificate of

Appealability on December 15, 2010. (Doc. 68.) 

A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)(“The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would

find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”). Having

reviewed the Petition, Report and Recommendation, November 18 Order denying the Petition, and

Case 3:07-cv-01823-DMS-JMA Document 71 Filed 01/11/11 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 - 07cv1823

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability, the Court finds Petitioner has made the showing

required by§ 2253(c)(2)with respect to his claimsrelating to histrial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness

in failing to investigate his juvenile criminal history and properly advise him regarding the plea

agreement (claims 6, 8, 9, and 10 in the Petition). Accordingly, the Court grants a certificate of

appealability as to these specific issues. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). However, as to the remaining claims

and issues raised in the Petition, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that reasonable

jurists would find this Court’s assessment of such claims debatable. Therefore, the Court denies

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability as to such other claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01823-DMS-JMA Document 71 Filed 01/11/11 Page 2 of 2