Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05367/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05367-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Respondent
Chek Ngoun
Petitioner

Document Text:

1/

 John Marshall, Warden, California Men’s Colony, San Luis Obispo, California, substituted for

Derral G. Adams. FED. R. CIV. P. 25(c).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHEK NGOUN,

Petitioner,

vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,1/

Respondent.

No. 1:03-cv-05367-JKS (HC)

FINAL JUDGMENT

The Court having entered its Memorandum Decision of even date herewith disposing of all

issues raised in the petition,

IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT the Petition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the court declines to issue a Certificate of

Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (a COA should

be granted where the applicant has made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right,” i.e., when “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” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted));

Hoffman v. Arave, 455 F.3d 926, 943 (9th Cir.2006) (same). All federal constitutional issues

properly raised in the petition were deemed addressed by the Stanislaus County Superior Court on

Petitioner’s state habeas petition to the extent they were not procedurally defaulted, or deemed

addressed by the California Supreme Court in denying Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief before

that court, and no reasonable jurist could find that those decisions were “objectively unreasonable.”

Dated: June 7, 2007.

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-05367-JKS Document 30 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 1