Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00064/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00064-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Joshua Wayne Redzinak, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00064-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins that recommends denying Petitioner’s 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 20.) 

 A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any objections to the 

Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the 

Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. 

 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Kimmin’s 

recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999); see also Conley v. 

Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability 

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying 

the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of 

Case 4:15-cv-00064-JGZ Document 21 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

appealability or state why a certificate should not issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. 

§2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court 

must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A 

substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among 

reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves 

further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review 

of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court 

concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable 

among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is accepted 

and adopted; 

2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED; 

3. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 Dated this 23rd day of August, 2016. 

Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00064-JGZ Document 21 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 2