Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01751-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD RAY MCKINNEY,

Petitioner,

v.

CARL WOFFORD,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01751-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY (ECF No. 42)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 27, 2015, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition and 

dismissed without prejudice the petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 36). On that same 

date, judgment was entered in accordance with the order dismissing the petition. (ECF No. 36). 

In the order dismissing the petition, the Court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability. 

(ECF No. 36). On August 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay and abeyance. (ECF No. 

38). Petitioner also filed on that date objections which the Court construed as a motion for 

reconsideration of the order dismissing the petition. (ECF No. 39). On August 14, 2015, the 

Court denied Petitioner’s motions for stay and abeyance and reconsideration. (ECF No. 40). On 

August 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for certificate of appealability and a notice of appeal. 

(ECF Nos. 41, 42). 

Case 1:14-cv-01751-SAB Document 45 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In the order dismissing the petition and declining to issue a certificate of appealability, 

the Court found that “reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner 

is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 

proceed further” and that Petitioner had “not made the required substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right” to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 36 at 

3). Upon review of Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability, the Court finds that 

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner’s federal habeas 

petition should be dismissed debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed 

further. The Court also finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination 

that Petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance should be denied debatable, wrong, or deserving 

of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability must be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for 

a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01751-SAB Document 45 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 2