Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00683/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00683-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY MARION DIXON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-00-0683 FCD KJM P

vs.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has timely

filed a notice of appeal of this court's April 19, 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

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

Case 2:00-cv-00683-FCD-KJM Document 85 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 3
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

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

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

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: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding

petitioner sane at the time of the offenses; (2) whether the evidence was insufficient to support

petitioner’s convictions of assault with intent to commit rape and attempted sexual battery; (3)

whether petitioner’s right to due process was violated by the admission into evidence of his prior

sexual offenses; (4) whether the trial court erred in convicting petitioner of both attempted sexual

battery and the necessarily included offense of assault with intent to commit rape; (5) whether the

trial court improperly imposed a concurrent sentence for misdemeanor false imprisonment; (6)

whether petitioner’s right to due process was violated by the prosecutor’s knowing use of

perjured testimony; (7) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct; and (8) whether

petitioner’s appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

Petitioner has also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows:

[A] party who has been permitted to proceed in an action in the

district court in forma pauperis . . . may proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis without further authorization unless . . . the district court

shall certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find

that the party is otherwise not entitled so to proceed . . . . 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). This court has not certified that petitioner’s appeal is not taken in good

faith and has not otherwise found that petitioner is not entitled to proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will

be denied as unnecessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A certificate of appealability is issued in the present action; and

Case 2:00-cv-00683-FCD-KJM Document 85 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied as

unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).

DATED:May 20, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

/dixon683.coa

Case 2:00-cv-00683-FCD-KJM Document 85 Filed 05/23/05 Page 3 of 3