Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02077/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02077-1/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

06cv2077

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO MANZANO,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of

California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv2077 JAH(WMc)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction and sentence in state court on

the sole ground that his sentence violates the prohibition cruel and unusual punishments

guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)B)

and Local Rule HC.2(a), the Honorable William McCurine, Jr., United States Magistrate

Judge, issued a report and recommendation recommending the petition be denied in its

entirety. Because petitioner, in his objections to the magistrates judge’s report, petitioner

claimed he had filed a traverse which had not been addressed in the report, this Court

remanded the matter to the magistrate judge for submission of an amended report

addressing the omitted traverse. Judge McCurine subsequently issued an amended report,

again recommending the petition be denied in its entirety. No objections were filed to the

amended report. This Court, after a thorough review of the record, adopted the amended

report in toto and denied the petition in its entirety.

Case 3:06-cv-02077-JAH-WMC Document 25 Filed 10/17/08 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 06cv2077

On October 14, 2008, petitioner filed a notice of appeal which included an

applicationt for a certificate of appealability. 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). To meet this threshold showing, a petitioner must show : (1) the

issues are debatable among jurists of reason; or (2) that a court could resolve the issues in

a different manner; or (3) that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to

proceed further. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000)(citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)).

Here, petitioner appeals this Court’s order denying the petition for writ of habeas

corpus. In denying the petition, this Court agreed with the magistrate judge’s

determination that petitioner’s sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the crimes

charged considering petitioner’s long history of convictions on both violent and nonviolent crimes and thus, the state court’s affirmation of petitioner’s conviction was neither

contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. 

See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-05 (2000); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63,

73 (2003); Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2003). This Court finds that

a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this instance because the denial of

petitioner’s claims of cruel and unusual punishment under the circumstances here is not

an issue debatable among jurists of reason nor could any other court resolve the issue in

a different manner. Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1024-25. Accordingly, this Court DENIES

petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability.

DATED: October 17, 2008

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02077-JAH-WMC Document 25 Filed 10/17/08 Page 2 of 2