Scott Shawn Kosterow et al v. Eric Holder, No. 5:2012cv00546 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge George H Wu for Report and Recommendation (Issued), Report and Recommendation (Issued) 17 , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and Declarations of John E Nordin II and George Y Cho 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[
Scott Shawn Kosterow et al v. Eric Holder Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 SCOTT SHAWN KOSTEROW, Petitioner, 12 13 v. 14 ERIC HOLDER, Respondent. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED CV 12-00546-GW (VBK) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the Court has reviewed the Petition 18 for Writ of Mandamus (“Petition”), the records and files herein, and 19 the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 20 (“Report”). The Court has made a de novo determination of the Report. 21 The Court makes the following change to the Report: 22 Page 2, Line 7: change “without prejudice” to “with prejudice.” 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: October 17, 2012 GEORGE H. WU 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.
