Burciaga v. Warden, Centinela State Prison, CV 17-3830-JVS (PJW). (2018)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20181207a25
Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IN PART JAMES V. SELNA , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner and Respondent have objected.
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IN PART JAMES V. SELNA , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner and Respondent have objected. T..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IN PART
JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner and Respondent have objected. The Court accepts the Report and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
Further, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that, on all his claims but one, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). The Court grants a certificate of appealability with respect to the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner acted with premeditation and deliberation when he shot at Torres.
Source: Leagle
