Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01357/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01357-2/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 

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSE PEREZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOE A. LIZARRAGO, 

Respondents. 

No. 2:14-cv-1357 JAM DAD P 

ORDER 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 29, 2014, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued 

findings and recommendations, recommending that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas 

corpus be dismissed without prejudice as second or successive. (Doc. No. 8) On November 10, 

2014, the court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and declined to issue a 

certificate of appealability. (Doc. No. 9) The court entered judgment on the same day. (Doc. 

No. 10) Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 

 In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner asks the court to reconsider its decision to not 

issue a certificate of appealability in this case. Petitioner contends that the court stated in its order 

that he had not filed objections to the findings and recommendations addressing whether a 

certificate of appealability should issue. Petitioner contends, however, that he did in fact file a 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01357-JAM-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/10/15 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

request for a certificate of appealability. He has attached to his motion a copy of his mail log to 

demonstrate he timely filed his request. (Pet’r’s Mot. for Recons. at 1 & Attach.) 

 Petitioner’s motion fails to show that he is entitled to relief. As an initial matter, 

according to the mail log petitioner attached to his motion for reconsideration, petitioner did not 

send his request for certificability to this court. Rather, he sent it to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals in San Francisco. In any event, a certificate of appealability should be granted for any 

issue that petitioner can demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved 

differently by a different court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” 

Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 

880, 893 (1983)). Petitioner has made no such showing in his motion for reconsideration, and 

therefore, he is not entitled to relief. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration 

(Doc. No. 11) is denied. 

DATED: June 9, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-01357-JAM-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 2