Rodriguez v. Martinez
ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/27/2017 ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 14 Motion to Dismiss. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. CASE CLOSED; (Washington, S)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
On October 18, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations
herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file
objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the
court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before petitioner can appeal
this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.
22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue “only if
the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues
satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. See
Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of
appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the court finds that issuance of a certificate of
appealability is not warranted in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The findings and recommendations filed October 18, 2016, are adopted in
Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is granted;
The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.
Dated: January 27, 2017
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?