Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02013/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02013-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY LEE BYRD, No. 2:02-cv-2013-MCE-JFM-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

GAIL LEWIS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a notice of appeal of this court's April 24, 2006 denial of

his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner

can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must

issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253 “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 of appealability must “indicate which specific

issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 

Case 2:02-cv-02013-MCE -JFM Document 44 Filed 05/19/06 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any

issue that petitioner can demonstrate is “‘debatable among

jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.’” Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir.

2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right in the following issues presented in the

instant petition: failure to sua sponte instruct the jury on

mistake of fact, the trial court’s jury instruction that the jury

could find specific intent for vehicle theft based on

petitioner’s retention of the car beyond the scope of consent was

not harmless error, and his right to a fair trial was violated by

the trial court’s use of jury instruction CALJIC No. 17.41.1.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of

appealability is issued in the present action.

DATED: May 18, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02013-MCE -JFM Document 44 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2