Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00848/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00848-2/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

ERIC D. RICE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-0848 GEB JFM P

vs.

CHERYL PLILER, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through

counsel, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court’s

August 16, 2005, denial of his application for a writ of habeas

corpus together with a request for a certificate of appealability

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Petitioner seeks a certificate

of appealability on his claim that his due process rights were

violated because he was incompetent when tried and convicted and

on his claim that his rights to due process and a fair trial were

violated by an instruction that jurors should report “hold-outs”

to the court.

Case 2:02-cv-00848-GEB -JFM Document 30 Filed 08/19/05 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, 290 F.3d at 1010.

2

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, 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 with respect to his mental competence

claim. Petitioner has not, however, made the requisite showing

with respect to his jury instruction claim. See Brewer v. Hall,

378 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s

request for a certificate of appealability is granted with

respect to his claim that his due process rights were violated by 

Case 2:02-cv-00848-GEB -JFM Document 30 Filed 08/19/05 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

trial and conviction while he was mentally incompetent and denied

with respect to his jury instruction claim.

Dated: August 17, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-00848-GEB -JFM Document 30 Filed 08/19/05 Page 3 of 3