(HC) Patel v. Unknown, No. 2:2009cv02923 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/31/11 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 31 are ADOPTED IN FULL; petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus 10 is DENIED; the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and the clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this action; CASE CLOSED. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(HC) Patel v. Unknown Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAREN HASMUKHBHAI PATEL, No. 2:09-cv-02923-MCE-CMK-P Petitioner, 12 13 vs. ORDER 14 G. SWARTHOUT, Respondent. 15 / 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On December 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 22 objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have 23 been filed. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 25 supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the 2 court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before petitioner can appeal 3 this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 4 22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 5 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 6 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of 7 appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 8 such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed 9 on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) 10 ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 11 procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 12 states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 13 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). 14 For the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the court finds 15 that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 1, 2010, are adopted in 2. Petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 10) is 21 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 22 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 18 full; 19 20 23 denied; Dated: January 31, 2011 24 25 26 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.