(HC) Cranford v. Medina, No. 1:2015cv01712 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Petition, Directing Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment and Close Case, and Declining to Issue Certificate of Appealability, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/16. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Archie Cranford, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:15-cv-01712-DAD-JLT Plaintiff, v. Renee Medina, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PETITION, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 1 & 5) 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 17, 2015, the magistrate judge 20 assigned to the case issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be 21 dismissed as failing to state a claim cognizable in a federal habeas action, as opposed to a civil 22 rights action. (Doc. No. 5). The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and 23 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days from the date 24 of service of that order. On November 30, 2015, petitioner filed objections to the assigned 25 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 7). 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 27 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 28 objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations is 1 1 supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner’s objections present no grounds for 2 questioning the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Moreover, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this instance. A state 4 prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s 5 denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 6 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a 7 certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (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). If a court denied a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 24 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 25 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 26 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 27 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 28 encouragement to proceed further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 2 1 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 2 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 3 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 4 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 5 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 6 proceed further. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 7 Accordingly, based on the foregoing: 8 1. The findings and recommendations, filed November 17, 2015 (Doc. No. 5), are 9 ADOPTED IN FULL; 10 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), is DISMISSED; 11 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file; and, 12 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 13 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: January 6, 2016 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
