From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steen v. Clark

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California, Western Division
Mar 12, 2010
ED CV 07-00472-VAP (VBK) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2010)

Opinion


KEVIN NEAL STEEN, Petitioner, v. KEN CLARK, Respondent. No. ED CV 07-00472-VAP (VBK). United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division. March 12, 2010.

          ORDER (1) ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND (2) DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

          VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, District Judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the Court has made a de novo review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"), Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner's Opposition, the Memorandum and Order denying Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Granting a Stay, First Amended Petition, Respondent's Answer, Petitioner's Traverse, all of the records herein and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report").

         IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, (2) the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability ("COA"); and (3) Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition with prejudice.

Under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2), a COA may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." The Supreme Court has held that, to obtain a Certificate of Appealability under §2253(c), a habeas petitioner must show that "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further'." Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595 (2000)(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003). After review of Petitioner's contentions herein, this Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as is required to support the issuance of a COA.


Summaries of

Steen v. Clark

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California, Western Division
Mar 12, 2010
ED CV 07-00472-VAP (VBK) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2010)
Case details for

Steen v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN NEAL STEEN, Petitioner, v. KEN CLARK, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California, Western Division

Date published: Mar 12, 2010

Citations

ED CV 07-00472-VAP (VBK) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2010)