Lacy v. Lizarraga, ED CV 19-0610-GW (PJW). (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20190502c43
Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY GEORGE H. WU , District Judge . On April 3, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition, ED CV 19-0610-GW (PJW), in which he challenges his January 2016 state convictions for oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child ten years of age or younger and committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14. He claims that the trial court's exclusion of evidence violated his constitutional right to due process and a
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY GEORGE H. WU , District Judge . On April 3, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition, ED CV 19-0610-GW (PJW), in which he challenges his January 2016 state convictions for oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child ten years of age or younger and committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14. He claims that the trial court's exclusion of evidence violated his constitutional right to due process and a f..
More
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
GEORGE H. WU, District Judge.
On April 3, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition, ED CV 19-0610-GW (PJW), in which he challenges his January 2016 state convictions for oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child ten years of age or younger and committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14. He claims that the trial court's exclusion of evidence violated his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. On April 5, 2019, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response.
The Court has since learned that, on April 2, 2019, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this court challenging the exact same convictions on the exact same grounds. See Lacy v. Lizarraga, ED CV 19-0583-DDP (KES). Thus, the instant case, ED CV 19-0610-GW (PJW), is duplicative and is hereby dismissed.
Finally, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that the Court erred in its procedural ruling, Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b);
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
