Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02131/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02131-1/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

27

28

- 1 - 08cv02131

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAROLD ANDRE WALTON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08-CV-02131-H (POR)

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING THE

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

(2) GRANTING THE MOTION

FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS

vs.

LARRY SMALL, Warden,

Respondent.

On November 14, 2008, Jarold Andre Walton (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

(Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner challenges his convictions for attempted murder, assault with a

firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon, alleging constitutionally ineffective trial and

appellate counsel. (Id.) On February 9, 2009, Respondent filed an answer to the Petition. (Doc.

No. 9.) On December 18, 2009, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) that the Court deny the Petition. (Doc. No. 22.) On January 25, 2010, Petitioner filed

an objection to the R&R. (Doc. No. 24.) On February 17, 2010 the Court issued an order

denying the Petition and denying a certificate of appealability (“COA”). (Doc. No. 25.) On

March 19, 2010, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and an application for a COA. (Doc. Nos.

27, 32.) Petitioner also filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on March 19, 2010.

(Doc. No. 28.) 

Case 3:08-cv-02131-H-POR Document 33 Filed 04/01/10 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

27

28

- 2 - 08cv02131

Discussion

A. Certificate of Appealability 

A prisoner seeking a COA must demonstrate a “substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327

(2003). A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could

disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could

conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 481 (2000)). 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right in any

of his claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a COA.

B. In Forma Pauperis

If a prisoner seeks to appeal a district court’s decision in forma pauperis, the prisoner must

appeal in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In any case where the plaintiff or petitioner

has been granted leave to file the action in forma pauperis, pauper status may continue for the

appeal from a subsequent order or judgment, unless the district court certifies that the appeal

is taken in bad faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to continuing pauper status.

See id.; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). The Court finds no reason to revoke pauper status, and

therefore, GRANTS Petitioner's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability and

GRANTS Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2010

_________________________________

 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:08-cv-02131-H-POR Document 33 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 2