Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01333/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01333-1/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

Order Denying Motion for Certificate of Appealability

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Roberts333coaden 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. ROBERTS

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOE McGRATH, Warden,

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-1333 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Docket No. 41)

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 12, 2006, the Court denied the instant

petition on the merits and entered judgment in favor of Respondent. On June 1, 2006,

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a certificate of appealability. The

Court will deny the motion for a certificate of appealability.

DISCUSSION 

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of

**Original filed 6/22/06**

Case 5:04-cv-01333-JF Document 42 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Order Denying Motion for Certificate of Appealability

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Roberts333coaden 2

probable cause to appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall

grant a certificate of appealability “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. Id. § 2253(c)(3). 

“Where a district court has rejected the 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” section

2253(c)(2) codified the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983). See Slack, 120 S. Ct. at 1603. In

Barefoot, the Court explained that “a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal

right” means that a petitioner “must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among

jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner], or that the

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 463 U.S. at 893 n.4

(citations and internal quotations omitted; emphasis in original). Any doubts about

whether the Barefoot standard has been met must be resolved in petitioner’s favor. 

Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000).

The Court denied the instant habeas petition after careful consideration of the

merits. The Court found no violation of Petitioner’s federal constitutional rights in the

underlying state court proceedings. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its ruling. Accordingly,

Case 5:04-cv-01333-JF Document 42 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Order Denying Motion for Certificate of Appealability

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Roberts333coaden 3

Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability (docket no. 41) is DENIED. The

Clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals. 

Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate. See Fed. R. App. P.

22(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

 JEREMY FOGEL 

 United States District Judge

6/22/06

Case 5:04-cv-01333-JF Document 42 Filed 06/22/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Order Denying Motion for Certificate of Appealability

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Roberts333coaden 4

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Michael L. Roberts

P-44841

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532-7500

Stan M. Helfman

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:04-cv-01333-JF Document 42 Filed 06/22/06 Page 4 of 4