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 Order- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DENNIS D. CORBRAY,

Petitioner,

v.

SANDRA CARTER,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5043RJB

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

 This matter comes before the court on the petitioner’s Notice of Appeal. Dkt. 26. The court

must consider whether to grant or deny the petitioner a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

2253(c)(3). The court has carefully reviewed the record herein.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 7, 2006, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom issued a Report and

Recommendation, concluding that petitioner’s habeas claims did not merit habeas relief and

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. Dkt. 22. On October 20, 2006,

the court adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied the petition. Dkt. 24. On November

27, 2006, petitioner filed a Motion to Appeal Dismissal of Habeas Corpus § 2254 (Dkt. 26), which

included arguments in support of the appeal. The court has considered the arguments petitioner sets

forth in Dkt. 26 as support for a Certificate of Appealability.

Case 3:06-cv-05043-RJB Document 28 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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 Order- 2

STANDARD FOR GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The district court should grant an application for a Certificate of Appealability only if the

petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(3). To obtain a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a habeas petitioner

must make a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether, or agree that, 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000) (quoting

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). When the court denies a claim on

procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel,

120 S.Ct. at 1604. 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner’s habeas claims were exhausted and were, accordingly, reviewed on the merits. In

his appeal, petitioner reiterates the arguments he raised in the original petition for writ of habeas

corpus and in his objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation

addressed those claims thoroughly. The claims do not merit habeas relief. Petitioner also claims that

this court failed to review the Report and Recommendation de novo; this argument is without merit,

as the court reviewed the entire file prior to adopting the Report and Recommendation. Finally,

petitioner claims that this court violated his right to Due Process by failing to afford him an

evidentiary hearing; this issue was fully addressed in the Report and Recommendation and the court

concurred with the conclusion of the magistrate judge that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted.

Petitioner has not shown that reasonable jurists could debate whether, or agree that, the

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

to deserve encouragement to proceed further. The court should deny a Certificate of Appealability.

Case 3:06-cv-05043-RJB Document 28 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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 Order- 3

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for a Certificate of

Appealability is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to 

any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 11th day of December, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05043-RJB Document 28 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 3