(HC) Ortiz v. Gastelo, No. 1:2021cv00198 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations, Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Directing Clerk of Court to Close Case, and Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 07/22/2021. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Ortiz v. Gastelo Doc. 19 Case 1:21-cv-00198-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 07/22/21 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 AMADO RAMIREZ ORTIZ, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 Case No. 1:21-cv-00198-AWI-EPG-HC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY v. JOSIE GASTELO, Respondent. (ECF No. 17) 15 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 21, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation 21 recommending the petition be denied. (ECF No. 17). The Findings and Recommendation was 22 served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) 23 days of the date of service of the Findings and Recommendation. On June 21, 2021, Petitioner 24 filed timely objections. (ECF No. 18). 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 26 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 27 objections, the Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the 28 record and proper analysis and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendation. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00198-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 3 1 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 2 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 3 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 4 whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (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 13 14 (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. 15 16 17 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 18 19 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 20 If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 21 appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 22 petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 23 to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 24 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he 25 must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good 26 faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 27 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 28 determination that Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be denied debatable or 2 Case 1:21-cv-00198-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 07/22/21 Page 3 of 3 1 wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, 2 the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on May 21, 2021 (ECF No. 17) is 5 ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; 7 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case; and 8 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: July 22, 2021 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 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.
