ORTIZ v. TRIMBLE, 2:11-cv-1593 JAM GGH P. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20130906656
Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2013
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's June 27, 2013 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 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."
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's June 27, 2013 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 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." ..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's June 27, 2013 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
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. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's March 11, 2013 findings and recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
