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 DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE _______________________________________)

CRAIG BARFIELD, )

) No. C06-259RSL

Petitioner, ) 

v. )

) ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

SANDRA CARTER, ) OF APPEALABILITY

)

Respondent. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s “Motion for Certificate of

Appealability” (Dkt. #28). Under the amended version of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner may

not appeal the denial of a habeas corpus petition unless the district court or the Ninth Circuit

issues a certificate of appealability identifying the particular issues that may be pursued on

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

To obtain a certificate of appealability, the petitioner must make a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. “[O]bviously the petitioner need not show that he should

prevail on the merits. He has already failed in that endeavor.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.

880, 893 n.4 (1983). “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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In contrast, where a

petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, the Court must determine whether “jurists of

reason” would debate: (1) whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

Case 2:06-cv-00259-RSL Document 30 Filed 04/30/07 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

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY -2-

constitutional right; and (2) whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id.

“Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of

the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing

the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. In such a circumstance,

no appeal would be warranted.” Id.

Having reviewed the record in this case, including the Report and Recommendation of

the Honorable Monica J. Benton, the Court finds that its rulings should not be the subject of an

appeal. Petitioner set forth five grounds for relief in his federal habeas petition. See Dkt. #4 at

13-15; Dkt. #20 at 4. In his first three grounds for relief, plaintiff contested: (1) the lack of

African-Americans on his jury; (2) his trial attorneys’ failure to investigate his claimed alibi

witness “Stanley”; and (3) the State’s failure to disclose the destruction of evidence under Brady

v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 82 (1963). The Court’s findings regarding plaintiff’s first three claims

for relief are not “debatable or wrong” and should not be the subject of an appeal. 

In petitioner’s fourth ground for relief he claims that his trial attorney failed to

acknowledge information in his affidavit, and in his fifth claim for relief he claims his appellate

attorney failed to make arguments regarding the DNA kit used in his case. The Court found that

petitioner failed to properly exhaust these claims and petitioner did not demonstrate that claims

four and five are eligible for federal habeas review because they are procedurally barred. See

Dkt. #20 at 6-10. The Court finds that its procedural rulings on petitioner’s fourth and fifth

claims are not debatable among reasonable jurists and should not be the subject of an appeal.

For all of the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability (Dkt.

#28) is DENIED.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00259-RSL Document 30 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 2