Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04810/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04810-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Michael Hara
Petitioner
Bill Lockyer
Respondent
Santa Clara Superior Court
Respondent

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT MICHAEL HARA,

Petitioner,

 v.

SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT AT SAN

JOSE, and BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General

of California,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 04-04810 JSW

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND MOTION TO

STAY STATE COURT JUDGMENT

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Scott Michael Hara

regarding his August 2003 conviction for driving under the influence. The petition was denied on

the basis that the Petitioner failed to show any violation of his federal constitutional rights in the

underlying state criminal proceedings. Petitioner has filed notice of appeal and a request for a

certificate of appealability. Petitioner has also filed a motion to stay the state court judgment

pending appeal of this Court’s order denying his petition.

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 

Case 3:04-cv-04810-JSW Document 16 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

“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. 28 U.S.C. §

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. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

For the reasons discussed in the order denying the petition, Petitioner has not shown that

reasonable jurists would disagree that the claims in his petition are without merit. Accordingly, the

application for certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that

Petitioner’s motion to stay the state court judgment pending appeal of this Court’s denial of his

petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04810-JSW Document 16 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 2