Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01715-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jim Hamlet
Respondent
David Rucker
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 RUCKER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-1715 LKK EFB P

vs.

JIM HAMLET, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's July 2, 2007 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner has also

filed a request for a certificate of appealability. See 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 2:03-cv-01715-LKK -EFB Document 28 Filed 09/12/07 Page 1 of 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

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 his sentence constitutes cruel

and unusual punishment; (2) whether his appellate attorney rendered ineffective assistance; and

(3) whether his right to due process was violated by the giving of a jury instruction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is

issued in the present action.

DATED: September 11, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-01715-LKK -EFB Document 28 Filed 09/12/07 Page 2 of 2