Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01108/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01108-2/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 - 05cv1108

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE A. LAMER, Civil No. 05CV1108-BEN (POR)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, Director,

Respondent.

Petitioner Leslie A. Lamer (“Petitioner” or “Lamer”) has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”), challenging his state court convictions for lewd or

lascivious acts involving children under California Penal Code § 288. The Honorable Magistrate

Judge Louisa S. Porter issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Petition

be denied. In the Report, Judge Porter analyzed Lamar’s claims, and determined that the state

court’s denial of those claims was neither contrary to, nor involve an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Lamar made no specific or substantive objections to

Judge Porter’s findings in the Report. The Court adopted Judge Porter’s Report, denying the

Petition. Petitioner now requests a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) of denial of his Petition. 

Petitioner’s request is DENIED. 

In a habeas corpus proceeding, there is no appeal as a matter of right. A judge may grant a

COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 864-865 (9th Cir. 2002). “A substantial

showing includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree

Case 3:05-cv-01108-BEN-POR Document 45 Filed 01/25/07 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 - 05cv1108

that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Id. at 865 (internal citation and quotations 

omitted) (internal alterations omitted). “Thus, where a district court has rejected the constitutional

claims on the merits, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. (internal citations and

alterations omitted). 

The Court has carefully reviewed the issues Lamer raised in his Petition and determined that

the state court’s denial of his claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of,

clearly established federal law. This finding is not debatable among reasonable jurists, and Lamer’s

claims do not deserve further encouragement. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for COA is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01108-BEN-POR Document 45 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2