Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02454/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02454-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William L. Bird
Petitioner
Jill Brown
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM L. BIRD,

 Petitioner,

 v.

 JILL BROWN, Warden

Respondent. /

No. C05-02454 MHP

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Before the Court are Petitioner William L. Bird’s Application for a Certificate of

Appealability (“COA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis on appeal. (Docket Nos. 28, 30.)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, a Petitioner is required to obtain a COA from the district court

prior to filing an appeal. A court may issue a COA when “the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The “substantial showing”

may be satisfied where the petitioner demonstrates “that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . .

the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were

‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893-94 (1983)). 

In the instant case, Petitioner contends that a COA should issue as to each of the two issues

presented in the habeas petition: (1) whether it was constitutional error for the trial court, rather than

a jury, to make the critical factual finding that rendered his prior conviction a “serious felony;” and

Case 3:05-cv-02454-MJJ Document 31 Filed 05/07/08 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

(2) whether, when making that factual finding, the trial court improperly utilized a preliminary

hearing transcript and probation report from the prior offense, given that Petitioner had no notice at

the time of the earlier offense, and no opportunity to then litigate, the “serious felony” issue. Upon

review, the Court finds that Petitioner has met the requirements for obtaining a COA and GRANTS

Petitioner’s request as to both issues. 

As to Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(3) provides that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the district court

certifies that it is not taken in good faith. The appeal in this matter is taken in good faith, and

the Court GRANTS Petitioner leave to proceed IFP on appeal. 

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

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/6/2008 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-02454-MJJ Document 31 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 2