UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 19, 2008
CHRISTOPHER J. HIGHTOWER, PLAINTIFF,
ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, WARDEN, ET AL.,, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On June 12, 2008, this Court issued an order denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. [Doc.26]. On August 17, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is authorized "if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). "A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). See also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Having reviewed the motion, the response, and the June 12, 2008 order denying the petition, the Court finds reasonable jurists could disagree with this Court's resolution of Petitioner's constitutional claims arising out of Petitioner's allegation of prosecutorial misconduct. However, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate this Court's resolution of Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is debatable. Therefore, the Court grants Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability of his prosecutorial misconduct claim but denies his request for a certificate of appealability of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.