Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01231/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01231-6/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

JOHN MONTUE,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-CV-01231-AWI-SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

THAT THE COURT DENY PETITIONER'S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Docs. 39, 41, and 42) 

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner contended that the parole board denied his due 

process rights by failing to grant him parole. On January 9, 2015, the Court adopted findings and 

recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed and entered judgment against 

Petitioner. Doc. 37. On January 23, 2015, Petitioner moved for reconsideration. Doc. 39. 

Petitioner amended the motion on February 9, 2015. Doc. 41.

The motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. On February 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge 

filed findings and recommendations recommending that the Court deny the motion for 

reconsideration.

///

Case 1:14-cv-01231-AWI-SMS Document 45 Filed 04/08/15 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

The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be served within thirty days. Petitioner filed

a request for judicial notice on February 19, 2015 (Doc. 43), and objections on March 10, 2015 

(Doc. 44), restating his argument that the parole board had violated his constitutional rights by 

denying him parole. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district 

court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). In a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, an applicant may not appeal 

a District Court judgment unless the District Judge or a Circuit Judge issues a certificate of 

appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). F.R.App.P. 22(b). Section 2253(c) provides:

(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 issues or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph 

 (2).

I 

If a court denies a petitioner's 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01231-AWI-SMS Document 45 Filed 04/08/15 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

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommendations, filed 

February 12, 2015, are adopted in full. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01231-AWI-SMS Document 45 Filed 04/08/15 Page 3 of 3