Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03716/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03716-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT STEVEN HUDSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-03716 SI

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Robert Steven Hudson has filed a request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the request.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this Court on June 9, 2006, challenging the California Board

of Parole Hearings’ denial of his fourth request for parole at a hearing held on August 18, 2004. On

April 15, 2008, the Court issued an order denying the petition, concluding that petitioner’s commitment

offense provided “some evidence” supporting the decision to deny parole. April 15, 2008 Order at *7

(Docket No. 20). Under Ninth Circuit law in effect at the time, petitioner did not need a COA to appeal

the denial of his petition. See Rosas v. Neilson, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam);

White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1010 (9th Cir. 2004). Recently, however, an en banc panel of the

Ninth Circuit ruled in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010) that a prisoner must

obtain a COA in order to appeal the denial of a habeas petition challenging a parole denial. In view of

Hayward, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case to this Court for the limited purpose of determining

whether a COA was appropriate. Petitioner has also moved for issuance of a COA.

Case 3:06-cv-03716-SI Document 32 Filed 06/22/10 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

DISCUSSION

Before a habeas petitioner may appeal the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, he must

obtain a COA from the court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). “[U]ntil a COA has been issued federal courts

of appeals lack jurisdiction to rule on the merits of appeals from habeas petitioners.” Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). To obtain a COA, the petitioner must make “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this standard, the petitioner

“must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the

issues in a different manner; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Doe v. Woodford, 508 F.3d 563 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893

n. 4 (1983)) (alteration omitted). The petitioner need not, however, show that his appeal is likely to

succeed. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337.

The Court finds that petitioner has not made a substantial showing that he was denied a

constitutional right. Under either the caselaw in effect at the time of this Court’s ruling or the standards

set out in the new en banc decision in Hayward, the Court does not believe it is debatable that

petitioner’s commitment offense provided “some evidence” in support of a finding of future

dangerousness. Petitioner is therefore not entitled to a COA.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, petitioner’s request for a COA is DENIED.

(Docket No. 31).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03716-SI Document 32 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2