Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01712-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Archie Cranford
Petitioner
Renee Medina
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

Archie Cranford,

Plaintiff,

v.

Renee Medina,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01712-DAD-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE, 

AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY 

(Doc. Nos. 1 & 5)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 17, 2015, the magistrate judge 

assigned to the case issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be 

dismissed as failing to state a claim cognizable in a federal habeas action, as opposed to a civil 

rights action. (Doc. No. 5). The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days from the date 

of service of that order. On November 30, 2015, petitioner filed objections to the assigned 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 7). 

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 Recommendations is 

Case 1:15-cv-01712-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 01/07/16 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

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner’s objections present no grounds for 

questioning the magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Moreover, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this instance. 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).

If a court denied a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 

appealability when a petitioner makes 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01712-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 01/07/16 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

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

In the present case, the court finds 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 debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 

proceed further. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed November 17, 2015 (Doc. No. 5), are

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), is DISMISSED; 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file; and,

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

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2016 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01712-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 3