(HC) Hunter v. Sacramento Superior Court

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 6/2/2021 ADOPTING the findings and recommendations filed 4/26/2021, in full; DENYING Petitioner's motions for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 8 and 25 ; and DECLINING to issue a certificate of appealability for an interlocutory appeal from this order. CASE CLOSED (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DAVID SAMPSON HUNTER,

11

No. 2:20-CV-1097-WBS-DMC-P

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

SCOTT JONES,

14

ORDER

Respondent.

15
16

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

17

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

19

On April 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

20

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file

21

objections within the time specified therein. Timely objections to the findings and

22

recommendations have been filed.

23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,

24

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the entire file, the Court

25

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

26

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the

27

Court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal

28

this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.
1

1

22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under

2

28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

3

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of

4

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why

5

such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on

6

procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that

7

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

8

ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

9

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.

10

2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). For the reasons

11

set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the Court finds that issuance of

12

a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

The findings and recommendations filed April 26, 2021, are adopted in

2.

Petitioner’s motions for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief,

15
16
17
18

full;

ECF Nos. 8 and 25, are denied; and
3.

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability for an

19

interlocutory appeal from this order.

20

Dated: June 2, 2021

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2