Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06457/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06457-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Fransway
Petitioner
Anthony P. Kane
Respondent

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN FRANSWAY,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-06457 JSW

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

On May 11, 2006, Petitioner Stephen Fransway filed a notice of appeal without filing a

motion for certificate of appealability. The Court shall construe the notice of appeal as a

request for a certificate of appealability.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “[a]n appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from the

order entered on the motion [to vacate] as from a final judgment on application from a writ of

habeas corpus.” A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding 

 without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (“COA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A

judge shall grant a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

The certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing

required to satisfy [section] 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.” Id. at 484. This requires an overview of the claims in the petition and a 

Case 3:06-cv-06457-JSW Document 24 Filed 06/05/08 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

general assessment of their merits. It does not require full consideration of the factual or legal

bases adduced in support of the claims. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Nor

does it require a showing that the appeal will succeed. Id.; accord Lambright v. Stewart, 220

F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (issuance of COA is not precluded merely because petitioner

cannot meet standard for actually obtaining habeas relief). The question is the debatability of

the underlying claim, not the resolution of that debate. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 342.

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” section

2253(c)(2) codified the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Barefoot v.

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983). Slack, 529 U.S. at 483. In Barefoot, the Supreme Court

explained that “a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right” means that a petitioner

“must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could

resolve the issues [in a different manner], or that the questions are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted; emphasis in

original). 

The COA must indicate which issues satisfy the section 2253(c)(3) standard, and the

Court of Appeals is limited to considering only those claims. Hivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098,

1103 (9th Cir. 1999).

Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right[.]” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. at 484-85. Accordingly, the request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The

Clerk of Court shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner may also seek a certificate of appealability from that

court. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06457-JSW Document 24 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 2