IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 22, 2010
RAY RICHARD RENFRO, PETITIONER,
ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge
ORDER*fn1 DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On September 29, 2009, the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus sought by Petitioner Ray Richard Renfro ("Petitioner") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and entered judgment for Respondent. On October 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and motion for a certificate of appealability. On November 16, 2009, Petitioner filed a second motion for a certificate of appealability.
A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A court may issue a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A certificate of appealability must indicate which specific issues satisfy this requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).
"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).
This Court carefully considered all of the grounds for relief raised in the petition, and concluded that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate a denial of a constitutional right. The Court is not persuaded that reasonable jurists would find this conclusion debatable or wrong.
Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The clerk shall forward to the court of appeals the case file with this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).