Piper v. Lamarque
This text of 89 F. App'x 625 (Piper v. Lamarque) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Isadore Piper appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on whether Piper’s 25-years-to-life sentence [626]*626under California’s “three strikes” law constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We dismiss this appeal.
In the opening brief Piper has made a second request to broaden the COA. Because Piper has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right with respect to any of his additional claims, we decline to broaden the COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
We lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal because Piper expressly abandoned his contention that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, the only issue encompassed in the COA. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
89 F. App'x 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piper-v-lamarque-ca9-2004.