Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04229/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04229-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Harvey
Petitioner
D. K. Sisto
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH HARVEY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

D. K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-4229 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING 

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND

DENYING MOTION FOR

COUNSEL

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 November 20, 2009. Petitioner has filed a

timely notice of appeal and a motion for assignment of counsel. 

Petitioner has not requested a certificate of appealability (“COA”), but the notice of

appeal will be treated as such a request. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270

(9th Cir. 1997) (if no express request is made for a COA, the notice of appeal shall be

deemed to constitute a request for a certificate). 

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

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of

probable cause to appeal). 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

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.

Case 4:07-cv-04229-PJH Document 34 Filed 03/02/10 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

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. The implied request for a COA is DENIED. Petitioner’s

motion for appointment of counsel (document number 31 on the docket) is DENIED without

prejudice to renewing it in the court of appeals if that court grants a COA. 

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: March 2, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\HARVEY229.COA.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-04229-PJH Document 34 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2