Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-00733/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-00733-3/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 

Kamondai Richard Young,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV 14-00733-TUC-RCC (CRP)

ORDER 

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

States Magistrate Judge Pyle that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas petition filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. 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 Pyle’s 

recommendations are not clearly erroneous and they are adopted. 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); 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 

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 

Case 4:14-cv-00733-RCC Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 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 

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) The Report and Recommendation (Doc.58) is accepted and adopted. 

(2) Petitioner’s §2254 amended habeas petition (Doc. 8) is denied and this case is 

dismissed with prejudice. 

(3) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue. 

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case. 

 Dated this 4th day of November, 2016. 

Case 4:14-cv-00733-RCC Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 2