(HC) Mitchell v. Hedgeph, No. 2:2009cv00269 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/4/11 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 24 are ADOPTED IN FULL; Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED; the Court DECLINES TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; and the Clerk is directed to enter judgmnet and close file. CASE CLOSED.(Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(HC) Mitchell v. Hedgeph Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARL D. MITCHELL, 12 No. 2:09-cv-00269-MCE-CMK-P Petitioner, 13 vs. 14 A. HEDGEPETH, 15 ORDER Respondent. 16 / 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On November 19, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 22 objections within a specified time. A timely objection to the findings and recommendations has 23 been filed. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 3 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 4 proper analysis. 5 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the 6 court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before petitioner can appeal 7 this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 8 22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 9 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 10 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of 11 appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 12 such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed 13 on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) 14 ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 15 procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 16 states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 17 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). 18 For the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the court finds 19 that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 19, 2010, are adopted 4 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is denied; 5 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 3 7 8 in full; IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 4, 2011 9 10 11 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.