Cashman v. Warcholl et al
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/11/2012 ORDERING that a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action. (cc: USCA) (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
DANIEL P. CASHMAN,
11
Petitioner,
No. CIV S-09-2683 KJM-EFB P
vs.
12
13
GARY HUDGEONS; et al.,
14
Respondents.
ORDER
/
15
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of
17
this court's May 10, 2012 denial of his request for reconsideration and January 19, 2012 denial of
18
his petition for habeas corpus. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of
19
appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b).
20
A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the
21
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
22
§ 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues
23
satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue.
24
FED. R. APP. P. 22(b).
25
/////
26
/////
1
1
For the reasons set forth in the court’s January 19, 2012 order adopting the
2
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and May 10, 2012 order denying petitioner’s
3
request for reconsideration, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
4
constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 11, 2012.
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
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?