Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00650/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00650-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Montano
Petitioner
M. Eliot Spearman
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

JESUS MONTANO,

Petitioner,

v.

M. ELIOT SPEARMAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-00650-TLN-GGH

ORDER

Petitioner Jesus Montano (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 

application 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 November 8, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 15.)

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

///

Case 2:19-cv-00650-TLN-GGH Document 16 Filed 01/13/20 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

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has 

considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this 

decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28 

U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of 

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 

such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 

procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 

2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). 

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations (ECF 

No. 15), the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 8, 2019 (ECF No. 15), are 

adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED;

3. The petition is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely; and

4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 8, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00650-TLN-GGH Document 16 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2