From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carey v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 13, 2010
No. 2:07-cv-01642-MCE-CHS-P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:07-cv-01642-MCE-CHS-P.

July 13, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, challenged the execution of his sentence in an application for writ of habeas corpus which was denied by this court on November 10, 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 July 7, 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, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 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)).

Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

In this case, there was some evidence to support the decision of the Board of Parole Hearings that petitioner was not suitable for parole. Accordingly, petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Carey v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 13, 2010
No. 2:07-cv-01642-MCE-CHS-P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2010)
Case details for

Carey v. Sisto

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD H. CAREY, Petitioner, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 13, 2010

Citations

No. 2:07-cv-01642-MCE-CHS-P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2010)