(HC) King v. Haviland et al, No. 2:2009cv02366 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 1/4/11 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations 14 ADOPTED IN FULL; petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; a certificate of appealabilit is NOT ISSUED in this action and this case is CLOSED. (Carlos, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) King v. Haviland et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALFRED KING, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 vs. JOHN HAVILAND, et al., Respondents. ORDER / 15 16 No. 2:09-cv-2366 FCD KJN P Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ 17 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On October 25, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 22 Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 25 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 26 by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the 4 applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 5 § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues 6 satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 7 Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 8 9 10 For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s October 25, 2010 findings and recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 25, 2010, are adopted in full; 13 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; 14 3. A certificate of appealability is not issued in this action. 15 DATED: January 4, 2011. 16 17 18 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
