Beltran v. On Habeas Corpus
ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations Recommending Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denial of a Certificate of Appealability, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/14/16. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WARREN L. MONTGOMERY,,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENIAL OF A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
(Doc. No. 16)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 7, 2016, the assigned magistrate
judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the court deny the pending
petition, enter judgment for respondent, and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc.
No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice
that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. Neither party has filed objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has
conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court
concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record
and proper analysis. Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of evidence on which his underlying
conviction was based. However, as the findings and recommendations makes clear, adequate
evidence was presented at his trial to allow a rational trier of fact to find “the essential elements
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Viriginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Thus, denial of federal habeas relief is warranted.
Moreover, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 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, 537
U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). A certificate of appealability is required. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). When
a court denies a federal habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability if
the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists
could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a
different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.
880, 893 (1983)). In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of
appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not
entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to
1. The June 7, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) are adopted in full;
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied;
3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
4. The court directs the clerk of court to enter judgment for respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 14, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?