Nguon v. Madden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petitioner's notice of appeal from the dismissal of his state habeas corpus petition, which it construed as a request for a certificate of appealability. The court denied the request, finding that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Denial of request for certificate of appealability“Accordingly, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.” | substantial evidence | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Slack v. McDaniel, requiring a petitioner to show that reasonable jurists would find the assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The order relies on the prior findings in the Report and Recommendation and the March 20, 2023 order, which are not fully detailed in this specific document but are referenced as the basis for the conclusion. Assuming the underlying dismissal was procedurally and substantively sound as indicated by the adoption of the R&R, the denial of the COA is the standard outcome when the petitioner does not demonstrate a substantial constitutional claim. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate statutory and case law standards for issuing a certificate of appealability. It relies on the prior orders (R&R and March 20, 2023 order) for the substantive reasons, which is standard practice for COA denials.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HUNG DUONG NGUON, Case No.: 22cv181-JO-JLB 11 ORDER DENYING 12 CERTIFICATE OF Petitioner, APPEALABILITY 13 v. 14 RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, 15 16 Respondent. 17 18 Pro se Petitioner Hung Duong Nguon filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254 on February 6, 2022. Dkt. 1. On February 7, 2023, Magistrate Judge 20 Burkhardt issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) recommending that the 21 petition be dismissed. Dkt. 18. On February 24, 2023, Petitioner Nguon filed an objection 22 to the R&R, primarily on the grounds of judicial bias. Dkt. 20. On March 20, 2023, the 23 Court adopted the R&R and denied the petition. Dkt. 22. Petitioner timely filed a notice 24 of appeal of the Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see Dkt. 24, which 25 the Court construes as a request for a certificate of appealability. United States v. Asrar, 26 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the 27 request. 28 l The Court denies Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability because he has 2 ||not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. A petitioner may not 3 ||seek an appeal of a claim arising out of state court detention unless the petitioner first 4 || obtains a certificate of appealability from a district judge or a circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. 5 2253. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability will issue only if the petitioner 6 || makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); 7 || Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). For the reasons described in the R&R and 8 || this Court’s March 20, 2023 order, Petitioner has not demonstrated that “reasonable jurists 9 || would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” 10 || Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Accordingly, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 11 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for a 12 || certificate of appealability [Dkt. 24]. The Clerk shall forward to the Court of Appeals the 13 || case file with this order. See Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || Dated: June 20, 2023 18 19 20 7Jinsook Ohta 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28