Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02080/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02080-4/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

DAVID CECIL TUGGLE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-00-2080 DFL JFM P

vs.

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this

court's September 26, 2005 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. 

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

Case 2:00-cv-02080-DFL -JFM Document 49 Filed 09/01/06 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

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 an adequate showing of the denial of a constitutional right in the

following issues presented in the instant petition: petitioner’s sentence and the $10,000 fine were

cruel and unusual punishment (ground 13) and petitioner’s sentence was excessive and

disproportionate to the crime (ground 14). The remaining issues do not deserve encouragement

to proceed any further.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is issued in the

present action as to petitioner’s claims 13 and 14 .

DATED: 8/31/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:00-cv-02080-DFL -JFM Document 49 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 2