Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03369/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03369-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD HOUSTON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A. P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-03369 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING 

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The

court denied the petition on the merits. Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal which the

court will construe as also being a request for a certificate of appealability. See United

States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of

probable cause to appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall

grant a certificate of appealability "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 must indicate

which issues satisfy this standard. See id. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has

rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is

straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

For the reasons set out in the order denying the petition, jurists of reason would not

find the result debatable or wrong. Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability

Case 4:05-cv-03369-PJH Document 18 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

implied from the notice of appeal (document number 15 on the docket) is DENIED. His

request for appointment of counsel contained in the notice of appeal and his request for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (document number 16) are DENIED without

prejudice to renewing them in the court of appeals if that court grants a certificate of

appealability.

The clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of

Appeals. See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.

1997). Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see R.App.P.

22(b)(1), or if he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see

R.App.P. 22(b)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.05\HOUSTON369.COA.wpd 

Case 4:05-cv-03369-PJH Document 18 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 2