(HC) Barton v. San Joaquin
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/31/2021 ADOPTING IN FULL 42 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 40 Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSING 21 Fourth Amended Petition. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Tupolo, A)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIAM RAY BARTON,
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 February 10, 2021, 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 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations
have been filed.
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 under
28 U.S.C. § 2253 “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 February 10, 2021, are adopted in
Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 40, is granted;
Petitioner’s fourth amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2021
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?