Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00749/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00749-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

WALTER HOWARD WHITE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 1:07cv749-WQH-WMc

ORDER

vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

On February 19, 2009, the Court issued an Order denying with prejudice Petitioner’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and Judgment was entered.

(Doc. # 27, 28).

On March 19, 2009, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of

Appeal. (Doc. # 29).

On June 7, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an

Order remanding this case to this Court “for the limited purpose of granting or denying a

certificate of appealability.” (Doc. # 35).

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). It must appear that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the petitioner’s constitutional

claims debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). The Court

- 1 - 1:07cv749-WQH-WMc

Case 1:07-cv-00749-WQH -WMC Document 36 Filed 06/11/10 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

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated:

[T]he issuance of a COA is not precluded where the petitioner cannot meet the

standard to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. . . . This general principle reflects the

fact that the COA requirement constitutes a gatekeeping mechanism that

prevents[an appellate court] from devoting judicial resources on frivolousissues

while at the same time affording habeas petitioners an opportunity to persuade

[the appellate court] . . . of the potential merit of issues that may appear, at first

glance, to lack merit.

Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing, inter alia, Jefferson v.

Welborn, 222 F.3d 286, 289 (7th Cir. 2000) (a COA should issue unless the claims are “utterly

without merit”)). “[T]he district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the

standard for issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted.”

United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3)).

Although the Court denied Petitioner’s habeas Petition, the Court finds that Petitioner

raised colorable, nonfrivolous, constitutional arguments with respect to Petitioner’s second

ground for relief that “Petitioner was denied his due process rights to call

witnesses/Investigative Employee at his prison disciplinary hearing,” and Petitioner’s third

ground for relief that “Petitioner was denied his due process rights when prison officials failed

to allow Petitioner to raise facts on appeal through the Inmate Appeals Process.” (Answer, Ex.

4 at 4-5, Doc. # 17-3 (incorporated by reference in Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6,

Doc. # 5); see also Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 9-12, Doc. # 27).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is GRANTED.

DATED: June 11, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 1:07cv749-WQH-WMc

Case 1:07-cv-00749-WQH -WMC Document 36 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 2