Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01278/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01278-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosanne Campbell
Respondent
William Ray Morgan
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

 Petitioner’s notice of appeal was filed in the court on July 27, 2007. On September 7, 1

2007, petitioner filed a declaration stating that he placed his notice of appeal in the prison

mailbox for mailing on July 13, 2007. Pursuant to the mailbox rule, petitioner’s appeal is timely. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM RAY MORGAN,

Petitioner, 2:06-CV-1278-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

this court's June 18, 2007, 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).1

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).

Case 2:06-cv-01278-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 09/28/07 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 2

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 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

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

the following issue presented in the instant petition: whether there was sufficient evidence to

support petitioner’s conviction for the 2003 prison disciplinary conviction for possession of

inmate manufactured alcohol.

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

issued in the present action.

September 27, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01278-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2