Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00379/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00379-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Cate
Respondent
Ramiro Lemus Magana
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO LEMUS MAGANA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:10-CV-00379 LJO GSA HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 4, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

Petitioner challenges his 2009 convictions in Kings County Superior Court of possession of

methamphetamine for sale and possession of marijuana for sale. He presents the following five (5)

claims for relief: 1) He contends his convictions violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth

Amendment to the Constitution; 2) He argues the California double jeopardy protection under Cal.

Penal Code § 654 is impermissibly vague; 3) He claims the case should be remanded for

resentencing because the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence on the

second count; 4) He argues count II should be stayed pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 654; and 5) He

contends he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel due to counsel’s failure to challenge

the search and seizure on appeal.

Following a preliminary review of the petition, on March 26, 2010, the Magistrate Judge

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:10-cv-00379-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 05/04/10 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

issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for

failure to exhaust state remedies. He was granted thirty (30) days to comply and forewarned that

failure to do so would result in dismissal of his petition. Over thirty days have passed and he has not

complied. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed.

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. MillerEl 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 denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

“if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at

338.

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:10-cv-00379-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 05/04/10 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

In the present case, the Court finds that 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. Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a

certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 3

Case 1:10-cv-00379-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 05/04/10 Page 3 of 3