Koulavongsa v. California

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/9/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

SENGNGUEN KOULAVONGSA,

Case No.: 16cv1115-JLS (NLS)

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

v.
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19

Presently before the Court is the case of Koulavongsa v. California, et al. The Court

20

has adopted Magistrate Judge Nita L Stormes’s Report and Recommendation and

21

concluded that Petitioner’s claims are without merit. (ECF No. 15.)

22

Rule 11(a) governing Section 2254 and 2255 cases establishes that a “district court

23

must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

24

applicant.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the

25

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason

27

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists

28

could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
1
16cv1115-JLS (NLS)

1

further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529

2

U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

3

In the present case, Judge Stormes carefully and thoroughly considered the Petition,

4

(ECF No. 14), and the Court reviewed both Judge Stormes’s Report and Recommendation

5

and the record for clear error, (ECF No. 15). Petitioner at no time objected to Judge

6

Stormes’s Report and Recommendation. (See ECF No. 15, at 2.) Ultimately, the Court

7

concluded that Petitioner’s claims were either foreclosed by binding precedent or lacking

8

in evidentiary support. (Id.) Given the foregoing, the Court also concludes that no jurist of

9

reason could either disagree with this resolution or conclude that the issues presented are

10

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

11

The Court therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: March 9, 2017

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16cv1115-JLS (NLS)