Opinion
No. C 07-1818 PJH.
November 28, 2007
ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a state prisoner. On October 26, 2007, this court denied Dew's petition on the merits. Before the court is Dew's notice of appeal, which this court will also construe as a request for a certificate of appealability ("COA").
To obtain a COA, Dew must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). "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). Section 2253(c)(3) requires a court granting a COA to indicate which issues satisfy the COA standard. Here, the court finds that the three issues presented by Dew in his petition meet the above standard and accordingly GRANTS the COA as to those issues. See generally Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). Those issues include Dew's claims:
1) that the state court's decision to uphold the California Board of Parole Hearings' ("Board") denial of parole was not supported by sufficient evidence and was an unreasonable application of clearly established United States Supreme Court law;
2) that the unsuitability criteria the Board relied on to find him unsuitable for parole are unconstitutionally vague; and
3) that the Board violated the terms of his plea agreement by failing to set his parole date.
Dew's accompanying application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the clerk shall forward the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals. See Fed.R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.