Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00373/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00373-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Victor Lizardi,

Petitioner,

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-00373-TUC-JAS

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas 

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 As Petitioner’s objections do not undermine 

the analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Aguilera, Petitioner’s 

objections are rejected, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.

The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Aguilera’s

recommendations are not clearly erroneous, and they are adopted. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th 

Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court’s judgment, a certificate of appealability 

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of 

1 The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the 

unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems 

Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 

1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

Case 4:18-cv-00373-JAS Document 25 Filed 01/23/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying 

the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to “either issue a certificate of 

appealability or state why a certificate should not issue.” Additionally, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue “only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” In the certificate, the court 

must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A 

substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among 

reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves 

further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review 

of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court 

concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable 

among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is accepted and adopted.

(2) Petitioner’s § 2254 habeas petition is denied, and this case is dismissed with 

prejudice.

(3) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not be issued.

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.

Dated this 21st day of January, 2020.

Case 4:18-cv-00373-JAS Document 25 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 2