Parra v. Ryan et al

Filing 18

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Petitioners 1 §2254 Petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 7/28/14.(BAC)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8

Samuel Antonio Parra,
Petitioner,

9
10

ORDER

v.

11

No. CV-11-00716-TUC-JGZ

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

12

Respondents.

13

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United

14

States Magistrate Charles R. Pyle that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas petition

15

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Doc. 15.) As thoroughly explained by Magistrate

16

Judge Pyle, Petitioner is not entitled to relief as the claims raised in his petition are not

17

exhausted or are without merit. As Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the analysis

18

and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Pyle, Petitioner’s objections are

19

rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.

20

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability

21

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of

22

Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying

23

the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of

24

appealability or state why a certificate should not issue."

25

§2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a

26

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court

27

must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A

28

substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among

Additionally, 28 U.S.C.

1

reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves

2

further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review

3

of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court

4

concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable

5

among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

7

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted and adopted;

8

2. Petitioner’s §2254 Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed with

9

prejudice;

10

3. A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue; and

11

4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this

12

matter.

13

Dated this 28th day of July, 2014.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-