(HC) Ross v. Arnold, No. 1:2015cv00762 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 3 Pending Motion; and ORDER DECLINING to Issue a Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/11/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 Case No. 1:15-cv-00762 LJO MJS (HC) ALVIN RONNEL ROSS, 12 ORDER ADOPTING Petitioner, RECOMMENDATION 14 15 AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY v. 13 FINDINGS ERIC ARNOLD, Warden, [Doc. 9] Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 On May 22, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation 21 that the petition be DISMISSED as successive. This Findings and Recommendation was 22 served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) 23 days of the date of service of the order. Neither party filed objections. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has 25 conducted a de novo review of the case. Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the 26 entire 27 Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 28 /// file, the Court concludes that the 1 Magistrate Judge's Findings and 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 22, 2015, is ADOPTED; 3 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; 4 3. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT (ECF No. 3); and 5 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 6 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (in order to obtain a 7 COA, petitioner must show: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable 8 whether the petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right; 9 and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 10 court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 11 484 (2000). In the present case, jurists of reason would not find debatable 12 whether the petition was properly dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner has 13 not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 14 right. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill September 11, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.