Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00635/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00635-1/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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Lisa Michelle Connelly,

Petitioner,

 v.

Gloria Henry et al.,

Respondent(s).

 /

NO. C 03-00635 JW 

ORDER RE CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

On February 14, 2003, Petitioner initiated the instant action by filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus. Petitioner claimed that her sentence under California’s Three Strikes law constituted cruel and

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that her counsel was ineffective for failing to

request that her wobbler offenses be reduced to misdemeanors. On September 8, 2005, the Court issued

an Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Judgment. On October 6, 2005, Petitioner

filed a notice of appeal. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(1), an appeal may not be taken unless the district court or

appellate court issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability may issue "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), and the court of

appeals is limited to considering only those claims. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir.

1999); Fuller v. Roe, 182 F.3d 699, 702-03 (9th Cir. 1999). "Where a district court has rejected the

Case 5:03-cv-00635-JW Document 24 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 3
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

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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Based upon all papers filed to date, this Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to make the

requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate

of appealability.

Dated: November 23, 2005

03cv635coa

 /s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00635-JW Document 24 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 3
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alex Mendoza mendozalaw@adelphia.net

Kelly Michelle Croxton Kelly.Croxton@doj.ca.gov

Peggy S. Ruffra peggy.ruffra@doj.ca.gov

Dated: November 28, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:_/s/JW Chambers_________

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-00635-JW Document 24 Filed 11/28/05 Page 3 of 3