Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02238/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02238-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2238 FCD DAD P

vs.

CLAUDE FINN, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On November 3, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the

district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse

Case 2:06-cv-02238-FCD-DAD Document 19 Filed 01/04/10 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

2

to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner

can demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a

different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s November 3, 2009 findings and

recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 3, 2009, are adopted in

full; 

2. Respondent’s March 6, 2009 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is denied;

3. A certificate of appealabilty is not issued in this action; and 

4. This action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

DATED: January 4, 2010.

Case 2:06-cv-02238-FCD-DAD Document 19 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 2