Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00167/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00167-2/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 - 08cv167

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN EDWARD WALTERS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv0167 DMS (AJB)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 30]

vs.

D.K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondent.

On December 29, 2008, this Court issued an order denying Martin Edward Walter’s

(“Petitioner’s”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and adopting

Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 17) recommending

the same. (Doc. 23.) Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 59(b), Petitioner filed a

motion to amend or alter the Court’s judgment on January 14, 2009. (Doc. 27.) Petitioner then filed

a Notice of Appeal and Application for Certificate of Appealability, on January 26, 2009. (Docs. 29-

30.) Respondent filed a response and Petitioner filed a reply. (Docs. 31-32.) On March 9, 2009, the

Court denied Petitioner’s motion to amend or alter the Court’s judgment. (Doc. 33.)

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

Case 3:08-cv-00167-DMS-NLS Document 34 Filed 03/13/09 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 - 08cv167

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).

Having reviewed the application, petition, R&R, the December 29, 2008 order denying the

petition, the motion to alter or amend, and the March 9, 2009 order denying the motion to alter or

amend, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find this

Court’s denial of the petition debatable. Therefore, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2009

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00167-DMS-NLS Document 34 Filed 03/13/09 Page 2 of 2