Ellawendy v. Monterey County Superior Court

N.D. California

Ellawendy v. Monterey County Superior Court

DecidedJuly 7, 2020

Docket5:20-cv-00869

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Ellawendy v. Monterey County Superior Court, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ABDEL FATAH ELLAWENDY, 11 Case No. 20-00869 BLF (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE v. OF APPEALABILITY 13

MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR 14 COURT, 15 Respondent.

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction. Dkt. No. 1. On June 3, 20 2020, the Court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. Dkt. 21 No. 3. Petitioner appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 22 remanded the matter for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of 23 appealability. Dkt. No. 7. 24 In dismissing the instant action, which was Petitioner’s second federal habeas 25 petition filed in this district, the Court found that Petitioner had only gone so far as to 26 appeal the state appellate court at the time he filed the action. Dkt. No. 3 at 2. 27 Furthermore, Petitioner had subsequently filed a third habeas action which indicated that 1 || he had finally sought direct review with the state high court and was denied relief. Jd., 2 || citing Ellawendy v. Monterey Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. 20-02708 BLF, Dkt. No. | at 3. 3 || Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action, stating that the matter would proceed under 4 the more recently filed habeas action. J/d. 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that no certificate of appealability is 6 || warranted in this case. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it 7 || debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 8 || that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 9 || procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 10 The Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. = 12 || Dated: _ June 7, 2020 hetn Lun boomer BETH LABSON FREEMAN 13 United States District Judge

o 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Denying COA PRO-SE\BLF\HC.20\00869Ellawendy_deny-COA 26 27

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ABDEL FATAH ELLAWENDY, 11 Case No. 20-00869 BLF (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE v. OF APPEALABILITY 13

MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR 14 COURT, 15 Respondent.

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction. Dkt. No. 1. On June 3, 20 2020, the Court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. Dkt. 21 No. 3. Petitioner appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 22 remanded the matter for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of 23 appealability. Dkt. No. 7. 24 In dismissing the instant action, which was Petitioner’s second federal habeas 25 petition filed in this district, the Court found that Petitioner had only gone so far as to 26 appeal the state appellate court at the time he filed the action. Dkt. No. 3 at 2. 27 Furthermore, Petitioner had subsequently filed a third habeas action which indicated that 1 || he had finally sought direct review with the state high court and was denied relief. Jd., 2 || citing Ellawendy v. Monterey Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. 20-02708 BLF, Dkt. No. | at 3. 3 || Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action, stating that the matter would proceed under 4 the more recently filed habeas action. J/d. 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that no certificate of appealability is 6 || warranted in this case. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it 7 || debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 8 || that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 9 || procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 10 The Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. = 12 || Dated: _ June 7, 2020 hetn Lun boomer BETH LABSON FREEMAN 13 United States District Judge

o 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Denying COA PRO-SE\BLF\HC.20\00869Ellawendy_deny-COA 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ellawendy v. Monterey County Superior Court, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellawendy-v-monterey-county-superior-court-cand-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack