Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05579/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05579-1/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)

---

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

Section 2253 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides 1

in relevant part:

(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken

to the court of appeals from —

 

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in

which the detention complained of arises out of process

issued by a State court; or

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROMAN GUANA GARZA, ) 

 )

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ALAMEIDA, Director, )

 )

Respondent. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-02-5579 REC SMS

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY.

(Doc. 40) 

On December 20, 2005, Petitioner moved for a certificate of

appealability (COA) from this Court’s judgment of November 16,

2005. Appeal may not be taken without a COA from either this

Court or from the United States Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253. The standard for granting a COA has been stated as 1

Case 1:02-cv-05579-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 01/11/06 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

 

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under

paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.

 

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1)

shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the

showing required by paragraph (2).

2

follows: “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional

claims on the merits . . . [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of

the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” United States v.

Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542, 120 S. Ct. 1595

(2000)). Any doubts about whether a petitioner has met this

standard must be resolved in his favor. Silva v. Woodford, 279

F.3d 825, 833 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84);

see also Jefferson v. Welborn, 222 F.3d 286, 289 (7th Cir. 2000)

(COA should issue unless petitioner’s claims are “utterly without

merit”).

Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition sought relief on one

basis: that the trial court violated his constitutional rights

when it denied his motion for a new trial based on allegations of

jury misconduct. 

Petitioner alleged that one of the jurors that convicted him

at trial knew him, preventing him from receiving a fair trial. 

He alleged that the juror had hostility toward him because he had

Case 1:02-cv-05579-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 01/11/06 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

3

fired the juror’s daughter, who had worked at the restaurant he

owned. A defendant is entitled to a new trial where juror

misconduct prevents him from receiving a fair trial. United

States v. Klee, 494 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 1974). Petitioner

has made a showing of denial of a constitutional right sufficient

that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” See

United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d at 888-89. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Petition for a Certificate of

Appealability is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05579-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 3