Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01898/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01898-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY P. SAMBRANO,

Petitioner,

v.

S. REED,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01898-SAB-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE 

CASE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 18, 

2013. Following a preliminary review of the petition, on December 12, 2013, the Court 

concluded that it appeared Petitioner had failed to exhaust his state remedies by presenting his 

claims to the California Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Court issued an order directing 

Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust. 

On January 2, 2014, Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause. Petitioner 

acknowledges that he has not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court. As this 

Court stated in its previous order, a petitioner who is in state custody proceeding with a petition 

Case 1:13-cv-01898-SAB Document 12 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 3
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

for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), and 

he must satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and 

fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v. Henry, 

513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). Since in this case Petitioner has not presented his claims to the 

highest state court, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of those claims, and the petition must 

be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 

whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court 

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if 

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 

Case 1:13-cv-01898-SAB Document 12 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 3
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

3

proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

“something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . 

part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or 

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to 

refiling after exhaustion is completed; 

2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and terminate the case; and

3) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01898-SAB Document 12 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 3