Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00225/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00225-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Apker
Respondent
Ronald Laverne Halstead
Petitioner

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

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).

2

Although Petitioner has brought his claims in a § 2241 petition, a certificate of appealability

is required where a § 2241 petition attacks the petitioner's conviction or sentence. See Porter v.

Adams, 244 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2001). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Laverne Halstead, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Lionel Craig Apker, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-225-TUC-FRZ (JJM)

ORDER

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

Magistrate Judge Marshall that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas petition filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. As throughly explained by Magistrate Judge Marshall, the

petition must be denied as Petitioner fails to demonstrate any viable grounds entitling him

to habeas relief.1

 As Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the analysis and proper

conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Marshall, Petitioner’s objections are rejected and

the Report and Recommendation is adopted.

To the extent a certificate of appealability must issue before Petitioner can appeal,2

 it is

Case 4:11-cv-00225-FRZ Document 17 Filed 01/12/12 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

27

28

- 2 -

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

Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying the petition 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. 14) is accepted and adopted.

(2) Petitioner’s §2241 habeas petition is denied; this case is dismissed with prejudice.

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

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

DATED this 12th day of January, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00225-FRZ Document 17 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 2