Quinteros v. Paramo

Filing 19

ORDER denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/22/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIONEL QUINTEROS, Case No.: 16-cv-583 JLS (JLB) Petitioner, 12 13 14 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY v. DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is the case of Quinteros v. Paramo. The Court adopted 20 Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation and concluded that 21 Petitioner’s claims are without merit. (ECF No. 17.) 22 Rule 11(a) governing cases brought under Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28 of the 23 United States Code establishes that a “district court must issue or deny a certificate of 24 appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 25 A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing 26 of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this 27 standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 28 resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented 1 16-cv-583 JLS (JLB) 1 are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 2 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 3 In the present case, Judge Burkhardt carefully and thoroughly considered the 4 Petition, (ECF No. 16), and the Court reviewed both Judge Burkhardt’s Report and 5 Recommendation and the record for clear error, (ECF No. 17). Petitioner at no time 6 objected to Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation. (See ECF Nos. 16, 17.) 7 Ultimately, the Court concluded that Petitioner’s claims were either foreclosed by binding 8 precedent or lacking in evidentiary support. (ECF No. 17.) Given the foregoing, the Court 9 also concludes that no jurist of reason could either disagree with this resolution or conclude 10 that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 11 The Court therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: June 22, 2017 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 16-cv-583 JLS (JLB)

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?