Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goings v. Sisto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 16, 2010

GEORGE GOINGS, PETITIONER,
v.
DENNIS K. SISTO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, challenged the execution of his sentence in a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied by this court in an order filed on January 5, 2010. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal and his appeal was processed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On September 13, 2010, the case was remanded to this court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability in light of Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010) (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (overruling portions of earlier cases that relieved a prisoner from obtaining a certificate of appealability to review the denial of a habeas petition challenging an administrative decision to deny parole).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 "if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

The certificate of appealability must "indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy" the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can demonstrate is "'debatable among jurists of reason,'" could be resolved differently by a different court, or is "'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).*fn1

Here, for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations filed December 3, 2009, the state court's determination that the evidence was sufficient to support the Board of Parole Hearings' conclusion that petitioner was unsuitable for parole wass neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to any of the issues presented regarding the state parole authority's decision to deny parole. A certificate of appealability shall not issue in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.