(HC) Washington v. Pfeiffer ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS LAVALE WASHINGTON, No. 1:18-cv-00368-DAD-SKO (HC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 C. PFEIFFER, Warden, Kern Valley State PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Prison, CORPUS 15 Defendant. (Doc. No.) 16 17 18 Petitioner Chris Lavale Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 20, 2019, the magistrate judge 20 assigned to the case issued findings and recommendations recommending denial of the petition 21 for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 31.) Those findings and recommendation were served upon 22 all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from 23 the date of service of that order. On August 2, 2019, petitioner was granted an extension of thirty 24 (30) days to file objections (Doc. No. 33), but no objections have been filed, and the time in 25 which to do so has now passed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 27 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 28 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 2 | acertificate of appealability should issue. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 3 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 4 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El vy. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 5 | § 2253. If, as here, a court denies a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court may only issue a 6 | certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 7 | constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 8 | establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 9 | should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 10 || deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 11 | (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 12 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find that the court’s 13 | determination that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or 14 || deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate 15 | of appealability. 16 Accordingly: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 20, 2019 (Doc. No. 31), are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 24) is denied with prejudice; 20 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case; and 21 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ November 8, 2019 Dal Al yA 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28