Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RUFUS HARTY KELSAW v. BOB HOREL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 29, 2010

RUFUS HARTY KELSAW, IV, PETITIONER,
v.
BOB HOREL, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

/

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On September 14, 2010, the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations were filed and served on both parties. The findings and recommendations contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner's objections and respondent's reply to petitioner's objections are before the court.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The petition will be denied.

If petitioner wishes to appeal the court's decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A certificate of appealability may issue where "the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must "indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy" the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can demonstrate is "'debatable among jurists of reason,'" could be resolved differently by a different court, or is "'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).*fn1

In this case, petitioner failed to make substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 14, 2010 are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; and

3. A certificate of appealability shall not issue.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.