Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01115/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01115-2/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

16cv1115-JLS (NLS)

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

SENGNGUEN KOULAVONGSA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv1115-JLS (NLS)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY

Presently before the Court is the case of Koulavongsa v. California, et al. The Court 

has adopted Magistrate Judge Nita L Stormes’s Report and Recommendation and 

concluded that Petitioner’s claims are without merit. (ECF No. 15.) 

Rule 11(a) governing Section 2254 and 2255 cases 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 are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

Case 3:16-cv-01115-JLS-NLS Document 16 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16cv1115-JLS (NLS)

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

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 Stormes carefully and thoroughly considered the Petition,

(ECF No. 14), and the Court reviewed both Judge Stormes’s Report and Recommendation 

and the record for clear error, (ECF No. 15). Petitioner at no time objected to Judge 

Stormes’s Report and Recommendation. (See ECF No. 15, at 2.) Ultimately, the Court

concluded that Petitioner’s claims were either foreclosed by binding precedent or lacking 

in evidentiary support. (Id.) 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: March 9, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01115-JLS-NLS Document 16 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2