Montue v. Stainer

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING 42 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 39 , 41 Motions for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/8/2015. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

JOHN MONTUE,
Petitioner,

11
v.

12
13

Case No. 1:14-CV-01231-AWI-SMS HC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
THAT THE COURT DENY PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

STU SHERMAN, Warden,
Respondent.

14

(Docs. 39, 41, and 42)

15
16
17
18

Petitioner John Montue is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner contended that the parole board denied his due
process rights by failing to grant him parole. On January 9, 2015, the Court adopted findings and

19
recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed and entered judgment against
20
21

22

Petitioner. Doc. 37. On January 23, 2015, Petitioner moved for reconsideration. Doc. 39.
Petitioner amended the motion on February 9, 2015. Doc. 41.
The motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder pursuant to 28

23
24
25
26

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. On February 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
filed findings and recommendations recommending that the Court deny the motion for
reconsideration.

27
28

///
1

1

The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

2

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be served within thirty days. Petitioner filed

3

a request for judicial notice on February 19, 2015 (Doc. 43), and objections on March 10, 2015

4

(Doc. 44), restating his argument that the parole board had violated his constitutional rights by

5

denying him parole.

6

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

7
novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district
court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). In a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, an applicant may not appeal
a District Court judgment unless the District Judge or a Circuit Judge issues a certificate of

15
16
17

appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). F.R.App.P. 22(b). Section 2253(c) provides:
(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—

18
19

(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

20

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

21

22

(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.

23
24
25
26

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate
which specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph
(2).
I
If a court denies a petitioner's petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

27

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or

28

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
2

1

further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Although the

2

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate "something more than

3

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at

4

338.

5
6

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court's
determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

7
deserving of encouragement to proceed further.
8
CONCLUSION AND ORDER

9
10
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommendations, filed
February 12, 2015, are adopted in full. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 8, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3