Jackson v. Horel et al
Filing
32
ORDER re 28 Notice of Appeal filed by Kevin Jackson, signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/10/10. The Court DECLINES to issue a COA. (Kastilahn, A)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KEVIN JACKSON, 8 NO. CIV. S-06-2646 LKK/CHS P 9 10 11 12 Respondents. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, applied for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings's determination that petitioner was unsuitable for parole. In an order filed November 24, 2009, the court denied this petition on the merits, concluding that the Board's decision was supported by some evidence. Petitioner has sought to appeal this decision. In Hayward v. v. ORDER ROBERT A. HOREL, et al., Petitioner, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc), parole the Ninth Circuit must held a that petitioners of
challenging
decisions
obtain
certificate
appealability before the circuit court will entertain an appeal. Consistent with this holding, the Ninth Circuit's appellate
commissioner has remanded petitioner's appeal to this court for a 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
determination as to whether a certificate of appealability should issue. "Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy [28 U.S.C.] § 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." 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Slack v. McDaniel,
In this case, the magistrate judge's
findings and recommendations, which this court adopted in full, concluded that petitioner's extensive record of prison misconduct and his criminal history (not including the commitment offense) constituted some evidence of future dangerousness for purposes of federal habeas review. It does not appear that reasonable jurists
could disagree with this conclusion. Accordingly, the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 10, 2010.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
