Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01957/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01957-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur Calderon
Respondent
Steven Edward Crittenden
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 On June 24, 2005, the court issued an order modifying, in part, its reasoning in the

February 23 order on petitioner’s shackling claim but ultimately denied petitioner’s motion to

amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN EDWARD CRITTENDEN,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-97-0602 FCD GGH P 

vs. No. CIV-S-95-1957 FCD GGH P

 ARTHUR CALDERON, 

Respondent. ORDER RE CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

 /

Petitioner, Steven Edward Crittenden, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's

February 23, 2005 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus.1 Before petitioner can

appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 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. 

Case 2:95-cv-01957-KJM-GGH Document 156 Filed 08/26/05 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

2

 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. Id.

3 The court notes that respondent did not file an opposition to petitioner’s request

for a certificate of appealability.

2

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)).2

“[I]n a capital case, the nature of the penalty is a proper consideration in determining whether to

issue a certificate of [appealability].” Williams v. Woodford, 394 F.3d 567, 583 (9th Cir. 2004)

(internal quotations and citation omitted). Any doubt about granting a certificate of appealability

must be resolved in the petitioner’s favor. Id.

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in the

following issue(s) presented in the instant petition: 3

-- Claims 1 through 3 [Batson Claims]

-- Claim 5 [Insufficiency of Evidence to Support Torture Special Circumstance

Claim]

-- Claims 9 and 10 [Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims]

-- Claim 12 [Shackling Claim]

-- Claim 17 [Jury Misconduct Claim]

-- Claim 21 [California’s Death Penalty Law Lacks Adequate Procedural Safeguards

Claim]

-- Claim 34 [Improper Admission of Two “Shanks” and a “Soap Gun” Claim]

Case 2:95-cv-01957-KJM-GGH Document 156 Filed 08/26/05 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

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

present action.

DATED: August 25, 2005

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:95-cv-01957-KJM-GGH Document 156 Filed 08/26/05 Page 3 of 3