Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01858/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01858-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jaime Beltran
Petitioner
Warren L. Montgomery
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

JAIME BELTRAN,

Petitioner,

v.

WARREN L. MONTGOMERY,, 

Respondent.

No. 1:15-cv-01858-DAD-SKO 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING

DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENIAL OF A 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 16)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 7, 2016, the assigned magistrate 

judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the court deny the pending 

petition, enter judgment for respondent, and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 

No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice 

that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. Neither party has filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court 

concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record 

and proper analysis. Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of evidence on which his underlying 

conviction was based. However, as the findings and recommendations makes clear, adequate 

Case 1:15-cv-01858-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 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

evidence was presented at his trial to allow a rational trier of fact to find “the essential elements 

of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Viriginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 

Thus, denial of federal habeas relief is warranted. 

Moreover, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 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, 335-336 (2003). A certificate of appealability is required. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). When 

a court denies a federal habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability if 

the 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 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.

Accordingly,

1. The June 7, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) are adopted in full;

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

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

4. The court directs the clerk of court to enter judgment for respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01858-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 2