Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02377/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02377-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Prison Terms
Respondent
David Gene Lancaster
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 GENE LANCASTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-2377 GEB GGH P

vs.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

Good cause appearing, petitioner’s application is granted. Fed.

R. App. P. 24(a). 

Petitioner has timely filed a notice of appeal of this

court's April 11, 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).

Case 2:03-cv-02377-GEB-GGH Document 20 Filed 05/06/05 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

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 in the following issues presented in

the instant petition: 1) insufficient evidence; 2) biased panel;

3) double jeopardy; 4) violation of Cal. Penal Code § 3041; 5)

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal is granted;

Case 2:03-cv-02377-GEB-GGH Document 20 Filed 05/06/05 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. A certificate of appealability is issued in the

present action.

DATED: May 6, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02377-GEB-GGH Document 20 Filed 05/06/05 Page 3 of 3