Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01814/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01814-0/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 Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal; Denying

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Redd814coaden 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL REDD, )

Petitioner, )

)

)

 vs. )

)

)

)

JOE MCGRATH, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

No. C 03-1814 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY; DENYING

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS ON

APPEAL; DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Docket Nos. 28, 29, 30) 

On February 27, 2006, this Court denied the instant petition for writ of habeas

corpus on the merits and entered judgment in favor of Respondent. On March 20, 2006,

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and request for a certificate of appealability. Petitioner

also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and a motion for appointment

of counsel. The Court will DENY the certificate of appealability and DENY Petitioner’s

request to proceed in form pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel.

///

Case 5:03-cv-01814-JF Document 32 Filed 03/27/06 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 Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal; Denying

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Redd814coaden 2

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

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. See 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 prison disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its ruling. 

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability (docket no. 28) is DENIED. 

Case 5:03-cv-01814-JF Document 32 Filed 03/27/06 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 Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal; Denying

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Redd814coaden 3

Based upon the Court’s denying the certificate of appealability, Petitioner’s request to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and motion for appointment of counsel (docket nos.

29, 30) are DENIED. Petitioner may renew his requests with the Court of Appeals. The

Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transmit the file, including a copy of this

order, to the Court of Appeals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _______________ _______________________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01814-JF Document 32 Filed 03/27/06 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 Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal; Denying

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Redd814coaden 4

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

Paul A. Redd Jr.

B-72683

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7000

Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

Anya M. Binsacca

Deputy Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Case 5:03-cv-01814-JF Document 32 Filed 03/27/06 Page 4 of 4