Gomez v. Sullivan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ELROY PEDRO GOMEZ, Case No. 19-cv-06129-SI 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 9 v. APPEALABILITY 10 WILLIAM “JOE” SULLIVAN, 11 Respondent. 12

13 The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied and judgment entered on October 16, 2020, 14 || and petitioner’s earlier-filed request for appointment of counsel was denied on October 20, 2020. 3 15 || Petitioner thereafter filed a notice of appeal from the October 20, 2020 order, and identified specific a 16 || alleged errors in that order. This matter was referred by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 3 17 || Circuit to the undersigned for the limited purpose of determining whether to issue a certificate of S 18 || appealability as to the October 20, 2020 order. A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 19 |} U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in which “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 20 || petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 21 || find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural [ruling]” in the October 20, 22 2020 order. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The denial of the certificate of 23 appealability is without prejudice to petitioner seeking a certificate from the United States Court of 24 || Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: December 4, 2020 Site WU tee 27 □□ SUSAN ILLSTON 28 United States District Judge