Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02133/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02133-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERONIMO POLINA

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 16-cv-2133-WQH (RNB)

ORDER

vs.

W. L. MONTGOMERY; KAMALA

D. HARRIS,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 22) issued by the United States Magistrate Judge. 

Background

On April 30, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued the Report and

Recommendation concluding that the Petitioner was not entitled to relief on any

grounds set forth in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and recommending that this

court direct judgment be entered. (ECF No. 22). 

On June 15, 2018, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 27). 

Legal Standard

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

- 1 - 16cv2133-WQH 

Case 3:16-cv-02133-WQH-RNB Document 30 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

Ruling of the Court

After conducting a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and

considering the entire file, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court finds that the

Report and Recommendation correctly determined that the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus should be denied. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its

entirety.

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue

an appeal from a final order in a section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 

A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the petition presents

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

It must appear that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the

petitioner’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000). The Court finds that Petitioner has raised non-frivolous arguments. The

Court grants a certificate of appealability. 

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22)

is adopted in its entirety and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is

denied. Petitioner’s application for certificate of appealability (ECF No. 28) is

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Respondent and against

Petitioner and close the case. 

DATED: August 3, 2018

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 16cv2133-WQH 

Case 3:16-cv-02133-WQH-RNB Document 30 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2