Opinion
Case No. CV 11-8232-JVS (MLG)
12-01-2011
BRIAND WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. LEROY D. BACA, et al Respondent
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires the district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability ("COA") when it enters a final order adverse to the petitioner. Because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its ruling dismissing the petition, a COA is denied.
Before Petitioner may appeal the Court's decision dismissing his petition, a COA must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). The Court must either issue a COA indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
The court determines whether to issue or deny a COA pursuant to standards established in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) ; and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c). A COA may be issued only where there has been a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2) ; Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 33 0. As part of that analysis, the Court must determine whether "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, See also Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.
In Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 825, 832-33 (9th Cir. 2002), the court noted that this amounts to a "modest standard". (Quoting Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000)). Indeed, the standard for granting a COA has been characterized as "relatively low". Beardlee v. Brown, 393 F.3d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 2004). A COA should issue when the claims presented are "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84, (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)); see also Silva, 279 F.3d at 833. If reasonable jurists could "debate" whether the petition could be resolved in a different manner, then the COA should issue. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 330.
Under this standard of review, a COA should be denied. In dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus, this Court found, for the reasons articulated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, that Petitioner is not entitled to federal intervention into his pending state court criminal proceedings and that abstention was warranted. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971) . The Court further found that any challenge to the 1996 lewd and lascivious acts conviction was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Petitioner cannot make a colorable claim that jurists of reason would find debatable or wrong the decision dismissing the petition. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to a COA.
Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
James V. Selna
United States District Judge
Presented By:
Marc L. Goldman
United States Magistrate Judge