Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00622/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00622-0/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

06cv0622

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE MARTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, Warden, et.

al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv0622 JAH (CAB) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

challenging his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to the District Court for the Central

District of California and filed an amended petition on March 3, 2006. The action was later

transferred to this Court. On May 19, 2006, this Court dismissed the petition for failure to

clearly and succinctly state the grounds for relief and directed Petitioner to file an amended

petition no later than July 24, 2006. After the Court granted Petitioner’s request for an

extension of time, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition on August 4, 2006. Upon finding

the petition again failed to state a cognizable habeas claim, the Court dismissed the First

Amended Petition on August 16, 2006. On September 19, 2006, Petitioner filed a request to

file a Second Amended Petition. On September 28, 2006, the Court denied the request.

Petitioner now seeks to appeal the denial of his request to file a Second Amended Petition and

seeks a certificate of appealability.

//

Case 3:06-cv-00622-JAH-CAB Document 23 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 3
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 06cv0622

LEGAL STANDARD

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). To meet this

standard, petitioner must show that: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; or (2)

that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the questions are

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022,

1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Slack v. Mc Daniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)), and Barefoot v.

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). Petitioner does not have to show “that he should prevail on the

merits. He has already failed in that endeavor.” Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1025 (citing Barefoot,

463 U.S. at 893 n. 4). 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff sought to file an amended petition arguing “he was denied the right to direct

appeal of his state conviction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. . .” Motion at 1-2. He

further asserted he was denied access to the court by the “illegal search and seizure of his legal

(property) mail.” Id. at 2. The Court found the Ninth Circuit does not have jurisdiction to

hear a direct appeal of a state court petition pursuant to Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.

413, 415-16 (1923). The Court further found Petitioner did not identify any claim he

intended to present in a second amended petition and failed to identify why the alleged

interference with his legal papers by prison authorities renders his incarceration or sentence

constitutionally invalid.

Petitioner argues he is being discriminated against “because of his disabilities. . .” He

seeks reasonable accommodations, including extensions of time, an order granting him

permission to file a Second Amended Petition, and an order allowing Petitioner to appeal to the

Ninth Circuit should the Court deny his previous requests. This Court finds Petitioner’s claims

do not present a question of substance debatable among jurists nor do the claims raise serious

and substantial legal concerns that implicate his constitutional rights. Lambright, 220 F.3d

at 1024-25.

//

Case 3:06-cv-00622-JAH-CAB Document 23 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 3
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 06cv0622

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for a

certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DATED: November 8, 2006

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00622-JAH-CAB Document 23 Filed 11/08/06 Page 3 of 3