Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01022-4/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

STEVE FEGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-CV-01022-AWI-SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT 

DENY PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. 26) 

Petitioner Steve Fegan is a state prisoner serving a sentence of life without possibility of 

parole plus fourteen years following his December 13, 1995 conviction for violating California Penal 

Code §§ 187, 190.2, and 459 (murder with special circumstances and burglary). On June 30, 2014, 

he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 31, 2014, 

noting that Petitioner has filed twenty pro se post-conviction collateral challenges to the judgment of 

conviction associated with this case, Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as successive. 

Respondent carefully documented each of Petitioner's prior petitions regarding his 1995 conviction 

in Merced County Superior Court. Doc. 17. 

As detailed in findings and recommendations filed December 11, 2014, because Petitioner 

failed to seek leave to file yet another successive petition from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

prior to filing the above-captioned petition with this Court, the District Court is required to dismiss 

the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997). 

The District Court entered an order adopting the findings and recommendations on February 12, 

Case 1:14-cv-01022-AWI-SMS Document 27 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 4
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

2015.

Petitioner now requests issuance of a certificate of appealability. The undersigned 

recommends that the Court decline to do so.

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district 

court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). In a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, an applicant may not appeal 

a District Court judgment unless the District Judge or a Circuit Judge issues a certificate of 

appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). F.R.App.P. 22(b). Section 2253(c) provides:

(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

 (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.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate 

 which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph 

 (2).

If a court denies a petitioner's petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or 

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Although the 

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate "something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 

338.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court's 

Case 1:14-cv-01022-AWI-SMS Document 27 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or 

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. On at least twenty prior occasions, Petitioner has 

filed federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus, frivolously and in the absence of good faith. 

Despite his extensive history of federal litigation, he has failed or refused to seek leave to file the 

above-entitled petition from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under applicable law, the District 

Court had no alternative but to file the dismissal off the above-entitled petition for lack of 

jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned recommends that the Court DENY Petitioner's motion for a certificate of 

appealability.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, 

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California. Within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, either party may file written 

objections with the Court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the 

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure 

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01022-AWI-SMS Document 27 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 1:14-cv-01022-AWI-SMS Document 27 Filed 03/04/15 Page 4 of 4