Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00161/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00161-2/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

16-cv-0161-JLS (BLM)

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

LEONARD SALDANA,

Petitioner,

v.

NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-0161-JLS (BLM)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY

Presently before the Court is the case of Leonard Saldana v. Neil McDowell. The 

Court has adopted Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major’s Report and Recommendation 

and concluded that Petitioner’s claims are time-barred. (ECF No. 32.) 

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) (2008). “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 

Case 3:16-cv-00161-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-cv-0161-JLS (BLM)

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

jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed 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 Major carefully and thoroughly addressed the underlying 

Motion to Dismiss the Petition, and Petitioner’s Opposition to the same. (ECF No. 20.) 

This Court considered Petitioner’s Objection to Judge Major’s Report and 

Recommendation, (ECF No. 32), and concluded that Petitioner’s case is unquestionably 

time barred and that Petitioner provided no new evidence to support his theory of actual 

innocence. 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-00161-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2