Knox v. White

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE BRADLEY DAVID KNOX, Case No. C21-05272-RSM-BAT Petitioner, ORDER RESPONDING TO NINTH 11 CIRCUIT’S REQUEST FOR ISSUES FOR v. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DANIEL W WHITE, 14 Respondent.

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Ninth Circuit’s March 7, 2023, request for additional information: The district court has issued a certificate of appealability, but has 19 not stated which issue(s) satisfy the standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This case is remanded to the district court for the 20 limited purpose of issuing a modified certificate of appealability at the court’s earliest convenience. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 22 Cir. 1997). In the modified certificate of appealability, the court should specify the issues that meet the required showing. See 28 23 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270.

Dkt. #33. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) states, in part, “[a] certificate of appealability may issue [in a case such as this] only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and “[t]he certificate of appealability… shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy [this] showing…” A prisoner satisfies this standard “by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).

The Court hereby modifies its certificate of ability with the addition of the following sentence: Specifically, jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of the constitutional claims in Petitioner’s first and eighth claims.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 8th day of March, 2023.

12 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE