Beall v. Benidette

Full title: RONALD WAYNE BEALL, Petitioner, v. JAMES A. BENIDETTE, et al., Respondents

Court: United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Nov 1, 2010

2: 10-cv-00189-PMP-RJJ (D. Nev. Nov. 1, 2010)

Opinion

2: 10-cv-00189-PMP-RJJ.

November 1, 2010

ORDER

PHILIP PRO, District Judge

This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which Petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se. Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal. In order to proceed with his appeal, petitioner must receive a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed.R.App.P. 22; 9^th Cir. R. 22-1; Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 950-951 (9^th Cir. 2006); s ee also United States v. Mikels, 236 F.3d 550, 551-52 (9th Cir. 2001). Generally, a petitioner must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" to warrant a certificate of appealability. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). "The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Id. ( quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). In order to meet this threshold inquiry, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues differently; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Id.

This Court has considered the issues raised by petitioner, with respect to whether they satisfy the standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability, and determines that none meet that standard. The Court will therefore deny petitioner a certificate of appealability.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. (Docket #26.)

DATED: October 28, 2010.