Lopez v. Paramo
Filing
29
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Court DENY Petitioner's Motion for a Certificate of Appealability re 25 ; referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/24/2018. Objections to F&R due by 10/29/2018 (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSE M. LOPEZ,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
No. 1:16-cv-01489-LJO-SKO (HC)
v.
DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, R.J.
Donovan Correctional Facility,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THE COURT DENY PETITIONER'S
REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
Respondent.
16
(Doc. 25)
17
18
19
20
Petitioner, Jose M. Lopez, is a state prisoner convicted of six counts of torture (Cal. Penal
Code § 206); mayhem (Cal. Penal Code § 203); corporal injury (Cal. Penal Code § 273.5(a)); two
counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Cal. Penal Code § 245(a)(1)); false imprisonment with
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
violence (Cal. Penal Code § 236); and attempted voluntary manslaughter (Cal. Penal Code §§
664, 192(a)). Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court on October 5,
2016.
Petitioner alleged four grounds for habeas relief: (1) insufficient evidence; (2) jury
instruction error; (3) violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; and (4) violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. As detailed in the Findings and Recommendations filed July 5, 2018, the
28
1
1
Court did not find the California Court of Appeal’s opinion was either contrary to, or involved an
2
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. For this reason, the Court
3
recommended denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and declined to issue a
4
certificate of appealability. The District Court entered an order adopting the findings and
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
recommendations on August 7, 2018.
On September 17, 2018, Petitioner filed an “Application for Certificate of Appealability.”
(Doc. 25). The undersigned recommends the Court again decline to do so.
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
12
13
14
15
16
17
may not appeal a District Court judgment unless the District Judge or a Circuit Judge issues a
certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Fed. 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—
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.
18
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).
If a court denies a petitioner's petition, the court may only issue a certificate of
27
appealability "if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his
28
constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
2
1
encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
2
484 (2000). Although the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must
3
demonstrate "something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on
4
his . . . part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.
5
In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court's
6
7
determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or
8
deserving of encouragement to proceed further.
9
10
Any further requests for a Certificate of Appealibility must be addressed to the Court of
Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Ninth Circuit R. 22-1.
11
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
12
The undersigned recommends that the Court DENY Petitioner's motion for a certificate of
13
14
appealability.
15
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
16
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days
17
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, either party may file written
18
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s
19
Findings and Recommendations.@ Replies to the objections, if any, shall be served and filed within
20
21
fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
22
objections within the specified time may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's
23
order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 ((9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
24
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28
Dated:
September 24, 2018
/s/
3
Sheila K. Oberto
.
1
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?