Jose Magana-Torres v. Amy Miller
Jose Humberto MAGANA-TORRES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Amy MILLER, Respondent-Appellee
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain (author), Hayes, Carlos T. Bea
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE HUMBERTO MAGANA-TORRES, No. 12-16804 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02669-WBS- TJB v. AMY MILLER, MEMORANDUM * Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 11, 2014** San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and HAYES, District Judge.*** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. Jose Humberto Magana-Torres, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his conviction for several crimes, including home invasion and attempted murder. We dismiss.
None of the grounds for relief in Magana-Torres’ Opening Brief are encompassed within the certificate of appealability issued by the district court. We construe Magana-Torres’ Opening Brief as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Schneider v. McDaniel, 674 F.3d 1144, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 2012). So construed, the motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (“[U]ntil a [certificate of appealability] has been issued federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to rule on the merits of appeals from habeas petitioners.”).
DISMISSED.