Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 EDGAR LOPEZ FRAUSTO, Case No. 19-cv-0544-BAS-LR 13 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE 14 v. OF APPEALABILITY (ECF No. 38)

15 ROSEMARY NDOH; XAVIER BECERRA, 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability 20 from the denial of his first amended petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“petition”); 21 specifically, Petitioner seeks to appeal the juror misconduct claim. (ECF No. 38.) For the 22 following reasons, the Court GRANTS the certificate. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Petitioner Edgar Lopez Frausto, a state prisoner, filed a petition in district court 25 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 20.) Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. issued 26 a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending denial of the petition. (ECF No. 27 34.) Petitioner filed an objection to the R&R, to which the state government did not 28 1 respond. (ECF No. 35.) The Court adopted the R&R. (ECF Nos. 36, 37.) Now, Petitioner 2 seeks to appeal the denial of federal habeas relief. (ECF Nos. 39, 40.) 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A petitioner may not appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which 5 the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court” unless “a circuit 6 justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). “A 7 certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial 8 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 9 “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the 10 showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate 11 that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 12 debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Buck v. Davis, 580 13 U.S. 100, 115 (2017) (“At the [certificate of appealability] stage, the only question is 14 whether the applicant has shown that ‘jurists of reason could disagree with the district 15 court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 16 presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” (quotation 17 omitted)). 18 Here, Petitioner only seeks a certificate for his juror misconduct claim. Upon review, 19 the Court finds that a certificate is appropriate; jurists of reason could disagree with the 20 district court’s determination, and the issues presented are not frivolous. See Lambright v. 21 Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he [certificate of appealability] 22 requirement constitutes a gatekeeping mechanism that prevents [the Ninth Circuit] from 23 devoting judicial resources on frivolous issues while at the same time affording habeas 24 petitioners an opportunity to persuade [the Ninth Circuit] through full briefing and 25 argument of the potential merit of issues that may appear, at first glance, to lack merit.”). 26 27 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request for a certificate of 3 || appealability. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ~ 6 || DATED: April 2, 2026 Crate Bahar 7 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28