Ortiz v. Yates
Filing
39
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/9/11 ORDERING petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability 35 DENIED. (Carlos, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDDIE ORTIZ, JR.,
12
13
14
15
Petitioner,
vs.
JAMES A. YATES,
Respondent.
16
17
2: 08 - cv - 2165 JAM TJB
ORDER
/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for a certificate of
18
appealability along with his notice of appeal. On November 5, 2010, the United States
19
Magistrate Judge assigned to this matter filed findings and recommendations which was served
20
on Petitioner, and which advised Petitioner that in any objections he elected to file, he may
21
address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he elected to file an appeal
22
from the judgment in this case. On November 22, 2010, Petitioner filed objections to the
23
findings and recommendations.
24
25
26
On January 14, 2011, the undersigned issued an order adopting the findings and
recommendations in full and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant had
1
1
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The
2
court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required
3
showing, or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
4
A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can demonstrate is
5
“‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different court, or is
6
“‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d
7
1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).
8
Petitioner argues that the following issues should be granted a certificate of appealabilty:
9
1.
Whether the district court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on
10
Petitioner’s claim of right to counsel of choice and conflict with counsel
11
(structural error).
12
2.
Whether the district court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on
13
Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as regards to counsel’s
14
failure to investigate/interview alibi witnesses, the failure to present witnesses for
15
his defense, a competent pre-trial investigation.
16
3.
17
18
Petitioner to waive jury trial rights.
4.
19
20
Whether, with regard to Petitioner’s claim that trial counsel wrongly misadvised
Whether the District Court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on
Petitioner’s claim of actual innocence.
5.
Whether, with regard to Petitioner’s claim that the court wrongly convicted
21
Petitioner on the insufficiency of the evidence regarding the great bodily injury
22
and attempted murder findings.
23
24
(Dkt. No. 35 at p. 2.)
Petitioner fails to demonstrate that any of these arguments are “‘debatable among jurists
25
of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different court, or are “‘adequate to deserve
26
encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings, 290 F.3d at 1010. First, a court presented with a
2
1
request for an evidentiary hearing must first determine whether a factual basis exists in the record
2
to support petitioner’s claims, and if not, whether an evidentiary hearing “might be appropriate.”
3
Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d
4
1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005). A petitioner requesting an evidentiary hearing must also demonstrate
5
that he has presented a “colorable claim for relief.” Earp, 431 F.3d at 1167 (citations omitted).
6
To show that a claim is “colorable,” a petitioner is “required to allege specific facts which, if
7
true, would entitle him to relief.” Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 934 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal
8
quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, an evidentiary hearing was not warranted.
9
Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he has a colorable claim for federal habeas relief. Thus, a
10
certificate of appealability will not issue on Petitioner’s arguments that an evidentiary hearing
11
should have been held. Additionally, as to Petitioner’s substantive arguments, he fails to make a
12
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right for the reasons discussed in the adopted
13
findings and recommendations.
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s March 15, 2011 motion for a
15
certificate of appealability is DENIED.
16
DATED:
May 9, 2011
17
18
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?