UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 17, 2009
MUHAREM KURBEGOVICH, PLAINTIFF,
FBI (FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION), DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) On November 21, 2008, the Court denied the Petition, giving petitioner leave to amend his petition on or before January 26, 2009. Petitioner did not file an amended petition, and filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2009.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability in order to pursue his appeal. The Court should issue a certificate of appealability where Petitioner has made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir. 2005). To make a "substantial showing," the petitioner must "demonstrat[e] that 'reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable[.]'" Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Upon review of the petition, the Court finds Petitioner has not made a "substantial showing" and DENIES a certificate of appealability with respect to all of Petitioner's claims. See id. at 983-84.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.