Samuel Johnson v. A. Hedgpeth

The opinion of the court was delivered by: James V. Selna United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2254) has been denied on its merits and dismissed with prejudice.

"The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 11(a). A certificate of appealability ("COA") is not issued unless there is "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); United States v. Christakis, 238 F.3d 1164, 1168 n.4 (9th Cir. 2001). A "substantial showing" is a demonstration that: (1) issues are debatable among jurists of reason; (2) a court could resolve the issues differently; or (3) issues are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4, 103 S. Ct. 3383, 78 L. Ed. 2d 1090 (1983); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000); Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024 (9th Cir. 2000).

When (as here) a district court rejects constitutional claims on the merits, the COA standard is straightforward. "The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Here, Petitioner's claims were fully addressed in the Report and Recommendation accepted by the Court, the relevant principles of law are well-settled, and their application to the facts of this case is straightforward. Nothing in the record indicates that the determination on these issues is reasonably debatable or subject to differing resolution, nor are the claims deserving of encouragement for further proceedings.

Therefore, the issuance of a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

Presented by:

Dated: June 20, 2012

CARLA M. WOEHRLE United States Magistrate Judge

20120625