Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06432/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06432-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samuel Archuleta
Petitioner
Oakland Superior Court
Respondent

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL ARCHULETA,

Petitioner,

v.

OAKLAND SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-06432-HSG 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

On October 22, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief 

from his 1987 state conviction for first degree burglary. Dkt. No. 1. On February 4, 2019, this 

action was DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction and judgment was entered in favor of 

Respondent. Dkt Nos. 12 and 13. On November 22, 2019, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. No. 14. The Ninth Circuit has remanded this action for 

the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court 

that issues an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of 

appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). 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), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard,

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: [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that 

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable 

or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). For the reasons set forth in the Court’s 

Case 4:18-cv-06432-HSG Document 16 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

February 4, 2019 Order of Dismissal, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing that he has been denied a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability 

will be denied.

This case remains closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

3/4/2019

Case 4:18-cv-06432-HSG Document 16 Filed 03/04/19 Page 2 of 2