(HC) Khademi v. Placer County Sheriff ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVOOD KHADEMI, No. 23-cv-2122 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a county jail inmate, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, with an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties consented to the 19 jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (ECF No. 12.) 20 On February 23, 2024, respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted, this action was dismissed, 21 and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 30, 31.) On May 8, 2024, the United States Court of 22 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the action for the limited purpose of granting or denying 23 a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 36.) 24 Under Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court has 25 considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before petitioner can appeal this 26 decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 27 22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 1 || constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of 2 || appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 3 || sucha certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 4 || procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 5 || jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 6 || ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 7 || claim of the denial of a constitutional nght.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 8 || 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). For the reasons 9 || set forth in the February 23, 2024 order, the undersigned finds that issuance of a certificate of 10 || appealability is not warranted in this case. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The request for a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 36) is denied; and 13 2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the United States Court of 14 || Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 24-1738. 15 | Dated: May 14, 2024 / ae □□ / a Ly a 16 CAROLYN K DELANEY 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 || /knad1211.coa.d 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28