Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00115/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00115-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Apker
Respondent
Bobby Joe Mann
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).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bobby Joe Mann, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Craig Apker, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-115-TUC-FRZ (JCG)

ORDER

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

Magistrate Judge Guerin that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas petition filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §2241. As throughly explained by Magistrate Judge Guerin, 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 Guerin, Petitioner’s objections are rejected and the Report and

Recommendation is adopted.

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must

Case 4:11-cv-00115-FRZ Document 16 Filed 10/06/11 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

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). 

- 2 -

issue.2 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

made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 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. 12) 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 4th day of October, 2011.

Case 4:11-cv-00115-FRZ Document 16 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 2