Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00170/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00170-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Frauenheim
Respondent
Lanard Kitchens
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANARD KITCHENS,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00170-LJO-EPG-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 22), 

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK 

OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND 

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 December 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings 

and Recommendation that recommended that the petition be denied. (ECF No. 22). Petitioner 

filed timely objections. Respondent did not file a reply to the objections.

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, including Petitioner’s 

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is 

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and 

Recommendation.

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, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 

whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

Case 1:15-cv-00170-LJO-EPG Document 24 Filed 03/04/16 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

2

(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 denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 

appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 

petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 

to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he 

must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good 

faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that 

Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the 

issues presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the 

required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines 

to issue a certificate of appealability.

///

Case 1:15-cv-00170-LJO-EPG Document 24 Filed 03/04/16 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on December 28, 2015, is ADOPTED IN 

FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00170-LJO-EPG Document 24 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 3