Wilson v. Neuschmid
Wilson v. Neuschmid
Trial Court Opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9 ANTHONY ROSIER WILSON, Case No.: 4:18-cv-06744 YGR
10 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 11 v. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
12 ROBERT NEUSCHMID, Re: Dkt. No. 19 13 Respondent.
14 15 16 On June 20, 2018, petitioner Anthony Rosier Wilson petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 2.) On April 3, 2020, the Court granted respondent 18 Robert Neuschmid’s motion to dismiss the habeas petition. (Dkt. No. 16.) On May 1, 2020, Wilson 19 filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. (Dkt. No. 17.) On May 12, 2020, the Ninth Circuit 20 remanded Wilson's case to this Court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of 21 appealability. (Dkt. No. 19; see also
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. 22 Asrar,
116 F.3d 1268, 1270(9th Cir. 1997).) 23 The Court DENIES Wilson’s request for a certificate of appealability because Wilson has not 24 made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The 25 Court granted Neuschmid’s motion to dismiss Wilson’s habeas petition after careful consideration of 26 the motion, which required consideration of the 2016 declaration from Juwan Veal. The Court 27 concluded that the habeas petition was untimely, procedurally defaulted, and failed to state a claim. 28 The Court further found that the petition does not allege a constitutional error at his trial in the 1 || absence of the newly discovered evidence; instead, Wilson’s claim was solely alleged on actual 2 ||innocence, which he failed to so demonstrate. (Dkt. No. 16 at 10-11.) Nor has Wilson demonstrate 3 || that “reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims 4 || debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484(2000). Wilson may seek a certificate ¢ 5 || appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 6 The Clerk shall forward to the Ninth Circuit this case’s record, along with this Order. 7 IT Is SO ORDERED. || Date: May 15, 2020 9 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12
5 14 S 15 2 5 Z 16 a 17 Oo
Big
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown