Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00832/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00832-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DeMarrea McCoy-Gordon
Petitioner
Pelican Bay State Prison
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMARREA MCCOY-GORDON,

Petitioner,

v.

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-00832-DAD-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

(Doc. No. 17)

Petitioner DeMarrea McCoy-Gordon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302.

On February 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief be dismissed due to petitioner’s 

failure to first exhaust his claims in state court as is required. (Doc. No. 17.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on both parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the order. (Id.) No 

objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00832-DAD-JDP Document 18 Filed 03/12/20 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), the 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 findings and recommendations are supported by the 

record and proper analysis.

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief at this time, the court now 

turns to whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas 

corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is 

only allowed under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 335-336 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires 

that a district court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse 

to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 

(9th Cir. 1997). 

If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only issue a 

certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 

establish that “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.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination, that petitioner is not 

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief at this time due to his failure to first exhaust his claims in 

state court, wrong or debatable and they would not conclude that petitioner is deserving of 

encouragement to proceed further in this action. The court therefore declines to issue a certificate 

of appealability.

/////

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00832-DAD-JDP Document 18 Filed 03/12/20 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

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 7, 2020 (Doc. No. 17), are

adopted;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice 

due to petitioner’s failure to first exhaust his claims in state court; 

3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00832-DAD-JDP Document 18 Filed 03/12/20 Page 3 of 3