Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03628/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03628-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom L. Carey
Respondent
Harry J. Williby
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRY J. WILLIBY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-3628 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Docket no. 37)

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On

March 17, 2003, the Court ordered Respondent to show cause why a writ should not issue. 

Respondent filed an answer on July 24, 2003. Petitioner filed a traverse on September 30, 2003. 

On September 20, 2005, the Court entered an order and judgment denying the petition on the

merits. 

On October 18, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file his Notice

of Appeal and his request for a certificate of appealability. The Court granted Petitioner’s

request for an extension of time. On November 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal

and Request for Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 22(b). 

A certificate of appealability is DENIED because Petitioner has not made "a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner has not

demonstrated that "reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Case 3:02-cv-03628-JSW Document 38 Filed 09/28/06 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

27

28

2

Petitioner has also requested a Certificate of Appealability, based on this Court’s failure

to disqualify itself, contending that the impartiality of this Court “might reasonably be

questioned” because the undersigned has taught trial advocacy for many years at the University

of California, where the incident underlying the conviction took place. However, it is

well-established that actions taken by a judge during the normal course of the proceedings are

not a proper ground for disqualification. See United States v Scholl, 166 F3d 964, 977 (9th Cir

1999) (judge properly denied motion for disqualification based on her prior service as

prosecutor without supervisory position over defendant’s case). Petitioner has not established

that recusal was required and, as such, the motion is DENIED.

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

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from which Petitioner may also request a certificate of

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2006 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03628-JSW Document 38 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2