Eduardo Sandoval v. Woodford et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Application for Certificate of Appealability signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/16/2009. (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EDUARDO SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Warden Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:08-cv-00566 YNP [DLB] (HC) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties consented to exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), by order dated August 4, 2008, this case was assigned to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. On March 6, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for a certificate of appealability of the January 22, 2009, order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court's denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 1 1 2 3 4 5 validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from­ (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 6 7 8 9 If a court denies a petitioner's petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 10 "if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or 11 that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 12 further." Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 1034; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the 13 petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate "something more than 14 the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part." Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 15 1040. 16 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court's 17 determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or 18 deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial 19 showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner's 20 motion for certificate of appealability. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 26 27 28 U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). Dated: 3b142a September 16, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?