Ray Ronnie Govea v. Robert Trimble, No. 2:2011cv03396 - Document 111 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Christina A. Snyder for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 109 . 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). (mkr)

Download PDF
Ray Ronnie Govea v. Robert Trimble Doc. 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 8 9 10 11 12 RAY RONNIE GOVEA, Petitioner, 13 v. 14 15 ROBERT TRIMBLE, Respondent. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-03396-CAS (VBK) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the Court has reviewed the Third 19 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Third Amended Petition”), 20 the records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the 21 United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Further, the Court has 22 engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which 23 Petitioner has objected. 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: November 4, 2014 CHRISTINA A. SNYDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.