Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00152/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00152-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael L. Banks
Petitioner
Debra Dexter
Respondent

Document Text:

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

MICHAEL L. BANKS, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DEBRA DEXTER, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:09-cv-00152-LJO-JLT HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 25)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 17)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On January 26, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc.

1). On July 13, 2009, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response. (Doc. 11). On

September 10, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 17). On March

31, 2010, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and Recommendation

recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus be dismissed because the petition was untimely. (Doc. 25). This Findings and

1

Case 1:09-cv-00152-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 04/30/10 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

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. To date, the parties have not filed

timely 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 entire file, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis. 

Moreover, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 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, 537

U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate

of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district

judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the

circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity

of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person

charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such

person's detention pending removal proceedings.

(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 issue

or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denied a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of

appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that

“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

2

Case 1:09-cv-00152-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 04/30/10 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

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of

appealability. 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. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed March 31, 2010 (Doc. 25), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17), is GRANTED;

3. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED; 

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file;

and,

5. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

This order terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00152-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 04/30/10 Page 3 of 3