Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00551/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00551-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Respondent
Israel Noel McKenzie
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

ISRAEL NOEL McKENZIE

Petitioner,

 vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-0551 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME,

INSTRUCTING CLERK TO TREAT

MOTION AS NOTICE OF APPEAL,

AND DENYING MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The

court denied the petition in a ruling entered on April 26, 2010. Petitioner has filed a motion

that he captions “Request and Declaration for Order Extending Time to Fill Proposed Order

and Statement,” and a motion for a certificate of appealability. 

In the motion for an extension of time, petitioner refers to a deadline for filing a

“proposed statement on appeal” and to circumstances under which a fifteen day extension

of time to appeal can be granted. In any event, page three of the motion contains language

constituting a notice of appeal, and the motion was filed within the thirty days allowed for

filing a federal notice of appeal. The clerk shall modify the docket to indicate that a notice

of appeal was filed on the date the motion was filed. Considered as a motion for an

extension of time to appeal, the motion (document number 27 on the docket) is DENIED as

unnecessary. 

Petitioner also has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. A petitioner may

not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without first obtaining a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall

grant a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

Case 4:08-cv-00551-PJH Document 29 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate must indicate

which issues satisfy this standard. See 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: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

For the reasons set out in the order denying the petition, jurists of reason would not

find the result debatable or wrong. Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability

(document number 28 on the docket) is DENIED.

The clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of

Appeals. See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.

1997). Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see R.App.P.

22(b)(1), or if he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see

R.App.P. 22(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\MCKENZIE0551.COA.wpd 

Case 4:08-cv-00551-PJH Document 29 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2