Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00284/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00284-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Carey
Respondent
Curtis Lee Morrison
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS LEE MORRISON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-284 MCE CHS P

vs.

THOMAS CAREY, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, challenged the execution of his

sentence in an application for writ of habeas corpus which was denied by this court on January

14, 2010. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal and his appeal was processed to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On May 25, 2010, the case was remanded to this court for the limited purpose of

granting or denying a certificate of appealability in light of Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392,

2010 WL 1664977, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc) (overruling portions of earlier cases

that relieved a prisoner from obtaining a certificate of appealability to review the denial of a

habeas petition challenging an administrative decision to deny parole).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “if the applicant

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

Case 2:06-cv-00284-MCE-CHS Document 43 Filed 06/01/10 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

The certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy” the

requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Here, petitioner challenged a December 17, 2003 decision of the Board of Prison

Terms finding him unsuitable for parole. There was some evidence in the record to support the

Board’s decision that petitioner was not suitable for parole. Moreover, it is clear that the Board’s

denial of parole has not caused petitioner to serve a constitutionally disproportionate sentence for

his offense. Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right

with respect to the Board’s decision. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2010

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00284-MCE-CHS Document 43 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 2