Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00583/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00583-2/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

16-cv-583 JLS (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONEL QUINTEROS,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-583 JLS (JLB)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY

Presently before the Court is the case of Quinteros v. Paramo. The Court adopted 

Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation and concluded that 

Petitioner’s claims are without merit. (ECF No. 17.)

Rule 11(a) governing cases brought under Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28 of the 

United States Code establishes that a “district court must issue or deny a certificate of 

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 

resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented 

Case 3:16-cv-00583-JLS-JLB Document 19 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-cv-583 JLS (JLB)

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

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

In the present case, Judge Burkhardt carefully and thoroughly considered the 

Petition, (ECF No. 16), and the Court reviewed both Judge Burkhardt’s Report and 

Recommendation and the record for clear error, (ECF No. 17). Petitioner at no time 

objected to Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation. (See ECF Nos. 16, 17.) 

Ultimately, the Court concluded that Petitioner’s claims were either foreclosed by binding 

precedent or lacking in evidentiary support. (ECF No. 17.) Given the foregoing, the Court 

also concludes that no jurist of reason could either disagree with this resolution or conclude 

that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

The Court therefore DENIES a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00583-JLS-JLB Document 19 Filed 06/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2