Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01120-6/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 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORGAN KANE, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. 2:07-cv-01120-RSL-JLW

)

v. )

)

CLAUDE FINN, et al., )

) ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

) OF APPEALABILITY

Respondents. )

_________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s “Request for Certificate

of Appealability” and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hayward v. Marshall, __ F.3d __,

2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc). Because petitioner filed his notice

of appeal after April 24, 1996, his appeal is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which worked substantial changes to the law of

habeas corpus. Under the amended version of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner may not

appeal the denial of a habeas corpus petition unless the district court or the Ninth Circuit

issues a certificate of appealability identifying the particular issues that may be pursued

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

To obtain a certificate of appealability, the petitioner must make a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. “Obviously the petitioner need

not show that he should prevail on the merits. He has already failed in that endeavor.” 

Case 2:07-cv-01120-RSL -JLW Document 36 Filed 05/12/10 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 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983). Rather, he must demonstrate that the

resolution of the habeas petition is debatable among reasonable jurists or that the issues

presented were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Where a petition is dismissed on procedural

grounds, the Court must determine whether “jurists of reason” would debate (1) whether

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) whether the

district court’s procedural ruling was correct. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

Having reviewed the record in this case, including the Report and

Recommendation of the Honorable John L. Weinberg, United States Magistrate Judge,

the Court finds that the dismissal of petitioner’s habeas petition is not debatable among

reasonable jurists. Petitioner’s claims should not, therefore, be the subject of an appeal.

For all of the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability is DENIED.

Dated this 11th day of May, 2010.

A

ROBERT S. LASNIK

Chief United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01120-RSL -JLW Document 36 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2