-JLT (HC)Jackson v. Clark, No. 1:2011cv00074 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/14/2011 adopting 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Summarily dismissing Petition; directing Judgment be entered and declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JLT (HC)Jackson v. Clark Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 RAYMOND JACKSON, 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 16 KEN CLARK, 17 Respondent. 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:11-cv-00074-OWW-JLT HC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 6) ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 19 20 21 22 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and 23 Recommendation recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed 24 because the petition did not state grounds that would entitle Petitioner to relief under 28 25 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 6). This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and 26 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service 27 of that order. On March 4, 2011, Petitioner filed his objections. (Doc. 7). 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 2 objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is 3 supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 5 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 6 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 7 whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. (c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from-(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 16 17 Moreover, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. If a court denied a 18 petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner 19 makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To 20 make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate 21 whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 22 manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 23 further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 24 880, 893 (1983)). 25 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 26 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 27 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 28 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 2 1 proceed further. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. 4 The Findings and Recommendation, filed February 16, 2011 (Doc. 6), is ADOPTED IN FULL; 5 2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is SUMMARILY DISMISSED; 6 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file; 7 and, 8 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 9 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: March 14, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
