Jesse Lopez v. California Department of Corrections, No. 5:2012cv00635 - Document 11 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton for Report and Recommendation (Issued), Report and Recommendation (Issued) 10 IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and (2) the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability (COA). (rh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jesse Lopez v. California Department of Corrections Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 JESSE LOPEZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 15 Respondent. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED CV 12-00635-JVS (VBK) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the Court has reviewed the Petition 18 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), the records and files herein, 19 and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 20 Judge (“Report”). 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // Dockets.Justia.com 1 IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts the findings and 2 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and (2) the Court declines to 3 issue a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”).1 4 5 DATED: December 13, 2012 6 JAMES V. SELNA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2), a COA may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” The Supreme Court has held that, to obtain a Certificate of Appealability under §2253(c), a habeas petitioner must show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595 (2000)(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003). After review of Petitioner’s contentions herein, this Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as is required to support the issuance of a COA. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
