Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00992/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00992-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

HOWARD R. HERSHIPS,

Petitioner,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent. _______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-0992 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO

STAY STATE COURT

PROCEEDINGS; DENYING

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Docket Nos. 4 & 6)

On February 19, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner

alleged in the petition that he was being prosecuted in state court for violating California

Penal Code § 459 and was set to go to trial before a jury in the Santa Clara County Superior

Court on March 17, 2008; petitioner claimed he was being denied his right to selfrepresentation because the state court had denied him adequate funding to prepare his

defense. On February 27, 2008, the Court dismissed the petition on abstention grounds

because a decision on the merits of the petition would interfere with petitioner’s ongoing

state criminal proceedings. The dismissal was without prejudice to petitioner’s filing a new

federal habeas petition once his state criminal proceedings are completed and he has

exhausted state court remedies concerning all claims he wishes to raise in federal court. 

On the same date the Court dismissed the petition, petitioner filed a motion asking the

Case 3:08-cv-00992-MMC Document 8 Filed 04/24/08 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

Court to stay his state court criminal proceedings until the Court had ruled on the petition. 

As the Court had already ruled on and dismissed the petition when the request for a stay was

filed, petitioner’s request is hereby DENIED as moot.

Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b). Petitioner

has not shown, however, “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, the request for a certificate of

appealability is hereby DENIED. 

The Clerk shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from which petitioner may also seek a certificate of

appealability. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

This order terminates Docket Nos. 4 and 6.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00992-MMC Document 8 Filed 04/24/08 Page 2 of 2