Tamplin v. Muniz

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING 86 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DENYING Motion for Court Order re 84 85 ; The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/202/2020. (Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DWIGHT TAMPLIN, JR.,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
[Doc. 86]

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

16

No. 1:12-cv-01633-AWI-SKO (HC)

Respondent.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT
ORDER
[Docs. 84, 85]

17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

19

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 2, 2020, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued

20

Findings and Recommendation to deny Petitioner’s motion for court order dismissing the state

21

court action with prejudice, or in the alternative, schedule an evidentiary hearing. (Docs. 84, 85,

22

86.) This Findings and Recommendation was served upon all parties and contained notice that

23

any objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of that order.

24

To date, no party has filed objections.

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a

26

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that

27

the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

28

analysis.
1

1

In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner

2

seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of

3

his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

4

U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of

5

appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

6

(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.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

(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 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.
(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).
If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of

19

appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

20

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that

21

“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

22

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve

23

encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting

24

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

25

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

26

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of

27

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not

28

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to
2

1

proceed further. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

2

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

3

1.

4

The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 2, 2020 (Doc. 86), is
ADOPTED IN FULL;

5

2.

Petitioner’s motions to dismiss the state court action (Docs. 84, 85) are DENIED;

6

3.

The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and

7

4.

This case remains CLOSED.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 20, 2020
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3