Sorro v. Arizona, State of

Opinion

WO

Marvin Arido Sorro, No. CV-18-00219-TUC-CKJ

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Respondents. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Request for Permission to Appeal (Doc. 54). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s Request is DENIED, and his case remains CLOSED. Procedural History On November 14, 2018, Petitioner, Marvin Arido Sorro, filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 10). On October 31, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) determining two of Petitioner’s claims were procedurally barred (Doc. 46 at 6-20) and recommending that the remaining claims should be denied on their merits, id. at 21-27. On January 8, 2020, the Court adopted the R&R of Magistrate Judge Rateau and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”). (Doc. 49) In so doing, the Court found that “jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the [Amended] Petition stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right[,]” or “whether the district court was correct in 1 its procedural ruling.” Jd. at 7. On January 21, 2020, Petitioner filed his notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 51) On June 11, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued its order denying Petitioner’s request for a COA, ruling Petitioner had failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (Doc. 53 at 1) On June 26, 2020, Petitioner filed the motion at hand requesting permission from this Court to appeal its January 8, 2020 decision. (Doc. 54) Analysis The Court declined to issue Petitioner a COA, and Petitioner appealed the Court’s decision on January 21, 2020. On June 11, 2020, the Ninth Circuit also declined to issue a COA. As such, the Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to rule on the merits of an appeal from the Court’s June 8, 2020 Order. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) allows for the issuance of a COA when the petitioner demonstrates that reasonable jurists could agree that his petition 13} could have been resolved in a different manner. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Petitioner has, once again, failed to make that showing. Accordingly, his Motion 15} for Leave to Appeal the Court’s Order is DENIED. This case shall remain CLOSED. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Petitioner’s [54] Request for Permission to Appeal (Doc. 54) is DENIED. 2. This case remains CLOSED. Dated this 30th day of June, 2020. Cie Lo Ages Honorable Cin . J6fgenson United States District Judge

_2-