Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01291/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01291-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE L. DELGADILLO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES E. TILTON, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:08-CV-01666 OWW JMD HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. 29]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGEMENT

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Jose L. Delgadillo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 14, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations,

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED with prejudice. The

Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. 

The Findings and Recommendations was served on all parties and contained notice that any

objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

Thirty days have since passed and Petitioner has failed to file any objections to the Findings

and Recommendation. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court

has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the record and Petitioner’s

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, finding

that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, is supported by the record and proper analysis.

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:08-cv-01291-LJO-JMD Document 30 Filed 07/01/10 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

Additionally, the Court notes that 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). The controlling

statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which

provides that a circuit judge or judge may issue a certificate of appealability where “the applicant

has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Where the court denies a

habeas 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 proceed further.” Miller-El, 123 S.

Ct. at 1034; 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, 123 S. Ct. at 1040. 

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 14, 2010, is ADOPTED IN FULL

with the additional analysis stated above;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice; 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment; and

4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:08-cv-01291-LJO-JMD Document 30 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 2