Narrative Opinion Summary
Michael Lee McKelly, a California state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, which was deemed duplicative. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and reviews the case de novo. The appeal is affirmed based on the limited certificate of appealability, which focused on whether the district court erred in not considering McKelly's claim about custody credits. McKelly abandoned this issue by failing to address it in his briefs, leading to the conclusion that the claim was not contested. Additionally, since McKelly had previously presented the same claim in another pending § 2254 petition in district court, the dismissal of the duplicative petition is upheld. The court notes that the disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Any additional arguments raised by McKelly are not considered, as they were not certified for appeal.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abandonment of Claims in Appellate Briefssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: McKelly's failure to address the custody credits issue in his appellate briefs resulted in the abandonment of that claim.
Reasoning: McKelly abandoned this issue by failing to address it in his briefs, leading to the conclusion that the claim was not contested.
Dismissal of Duplicative Habeas Corpus Petitionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the dismissal of McKelly's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on the grounds that it was duplicative of another pending petition.
Reasoning: Additionally, since McKelly had previously presented the same claim in another pending § 2254 petition in district court, the dismissal of the duplicative petition is upheld.
Limitation on Consideration of Uncertified Argumentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court declined to consider any additional arguments raised by McKelly, as they were not included in the certificate of appealability.
Reasoning: Any additional arguments raised by McKelly are not considered, as they were not certified for appeal.
Non-Publication and Citation of Judicial Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's disposition in this case is designated as not suitable for publication and is restricted from citation in future cases, except under specific Ninth Circuit rules.
Reasoning: The court notes that the disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Scope of Certificate of Appealabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's review was limited to the issue of whether the district court erred in not considering McKelly's claim about custody credits, as defined by the certificate of appealability.
Reasoning: The appeal is affirmed based on the limited certificate of appealability, which focused on whether the district court erred in not considering McKelly's claim about custody credits.