Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01543/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01543-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Jerrell Inman
Petitioner
C. Koenig
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD JERRELL INMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

C. KOENIG,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01543-LJO-EPG-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING 

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR STAY, 

DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK 

OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND 

DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

(ECF Nos. 10, 11)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 15, 2019,

1

the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 

Recommendation that recommended dismissing the petition as an unauthorized successive 

petition and for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. (ECF No. 10). 

In response to the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner filed a request for a stay of

the instant proceedings so that Petitioner “can obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeal due to this case being a successive petition.” (ECF No. 11 at 1).2 Attached to the request

is a copy of Petitioner’s application for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition that is 

addressed to the Ninth Circuit. (Id. at 2–3). 

 

1 The Findings and Recommendation was signed on November 14, 2019 and entered on the docket on November 15, 

2019. 

2 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:19-cv-01543-LJO-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/06/20 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

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 Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Further, the 

Court finds that a stay is not warranted. In the event that the Ninth Circuit grants Petitioner leave 

to file a successive § 2254 petition, Petitioner can return to the district court and file his habeas

petition. 

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:

(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).

28 U.S.C. § 2253.

If a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying 

constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 

Case 1:19-cv-01543-LJO-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/06/20 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

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar 

is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 

could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 

petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id.

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

Petitioner’s habeas petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be 

allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on November 15, 2019 (ECF No. 10) is 

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Petitioner’s request for stay of proceedings (ECF No. 11) is DENIED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01543-LJO-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3