Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02130/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02130-1/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

- 1 - 09cv2130

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR G. TORRES,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09-CV-2130-IEG (WVG)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.

No. 9]; 

(2) DENYING THE PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. No. 1]; and

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY. 

vs.

DERYL G. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Arthur G. Torres (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his San Diego County Superior

Court conviction. (Doc. No. 1.) Respondent Deryl G. Adams filed an Answer and Memorandum of

Points and Authorities. Petitioner did not file a traverse.

On July 15, 2010, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending the Court deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and requiring any objections to

be filed no later than August 16, 2010. (Doc. No. 9.) To date, Petitioner has not filed objections.

Case 3:09-cv-02130-IEG-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/26/10 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 - 09cv2130

The Court HEREBY ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s well-reasoned Report and

Recommendation in its entirety, and DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk of the

Court shall close the case. 

In addition, the Court sua sponte DENIES a certificate of appealability. A petitioner

complaining of detention arising from state court proceedings must obtain a certificate of appealability

to file an appeal of the final order in a federal habeas proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2007).

The district court may issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner “has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make a “substantial showing,”

the petitioner must “demonstrat[e] that ‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable[.]’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Here, Petitioner has not made a “substantial

showing” as to any of the claims raised by his petition, and therefore the Court declines to issue a

certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 26, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02130-IEG-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/26/10 Page 2 of 2