Cepero v. Williams

D. Nevada

Cepero v. Williams

DecidedSeptember 10, 2019

Docket2:14-cv-01396

StatusUnknown

This text of Cepero v. Williams (Cepero v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cepero v. Williams, (D. Nev. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 BILLY CEPERO, Case No. 2:14-cv-01396-MMD-GWF

10 Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 This Court dismissed Petitioner Billy Cepero’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus 15 petition as untimely (ECF No. 32), and judgment was entered (ECF No. 33). 16 Subsequently, the Court denied Petitioner’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion 17 for reconsideration (ECF No. 46). 18 The Court now considers whether to issue or deny a certificate of appealability 19 (“COA”). See Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1993) (certificate of probable 20 cause to appeal necessary to appeal denial of post-judgment motion for relief under Rule 21 60(b)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner 22 “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” With respect to 23 claims rejected on the merits, a petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would 24 find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack 25 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 26 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate 27 (1) whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) 28 whether the court's procedural ruling was correct. Id. 1 Having reviewed its determinations and rulings in denying Petitioner's motion for 2|| reconsideration, the Court finds that none of those rulings meets the S/ack standard. The 3|| Court therefore declines to issue a COA. 4 This Court denies certificate of appealability as to Petitioner's motion for |} reconsideration. 7 DATED THIS 10° day of September 2019.

8 A Cf A IRANDA M. DU 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 BILLY CEPERO, Case No. 2:14-cv-01396-MMD-GWF

10 Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 This Court dismissed Petitioner Billy Cepero’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus 15 petition as untimely (ECF No. 32), and judgment was entered (ECF No. 33). 16 Subsequently, the Court denied Petitioner’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion 17 for reconsideration (ECF No. 46). 18 The Court now considers whether to issue or deny a certificate of appealability 19 (“COA”). See Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1993) (certificate of probable 20 cause to appeal necessary to appeal denial of post-judgment motion for relief under Rule 21 60(b)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner 22 “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” With respect to 23 claims rejected on the merits, a petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would 24 find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack 25 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 26 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate 27 (1) whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) 28 whether the court's procedural ruling was correct. Id. 1 Having reviewed its determinations and rulings in denying Petitioner's motion for 2|| reconsideration, the Court finds that none of those rulings meets the S/ack standard. The 3|| Court therefore declines to issue a COA. 4 This Court denies certificate of appealability as to Petitioner's motion for |} reconsideration. 7 DATED THIS 10° day of September 2019.

8 A Cf A IRANDA M. DU 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cepero v. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cepero-v-williams-nvd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack