IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 29, 2010
CHUNG KAO, PETITIONER,
MIKE KNOWLES, WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding in an application for writ of habeas corpus. In an order signed on August 31, 2009 and filed on September 1, 2009, petitioner's claims were denied. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and his appeal was processed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On October 6, 2010, the case was remanded to this court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability. 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
In this case, petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to the challenged disciplinary action and his resulting loss of "good-time" credits. A certificate of appealability shall not issue in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.