(HC) Casillas v. Secretary of Corrections ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMAR CASILLAS, No. 1:17-cv-00511-LJO-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 69) 13 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 14 v. OF HABEAS CORPUS 15 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE 16 CASE SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, 17 ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE Respondent. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 18 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 21 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge 22 assigned to the case issued Findings and Recommendation to deny the petition on its merits. 23 (Doc. No. 69.) This Findings and Recommendation was served upon all parties and contained 24 notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that 25 order. On October 2, 2019, Petitioner requested an extension of time. (Doc. 70.) On October 8, 26 2019, the Court granted a thirty-day extension of time. (Doc. 71.) On November 12, 2019, 27 Petitioner requested a second extension of time. (Doc. 72.) On November 18, 2019, the Court 28 granted Petitioner an additional thirty days to file objections. Over thirty days have now passed, 1 and Petitioner has not filed any objections. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 3 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 4 the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper 5 analysis. 6 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 7 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 8 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 9 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 10 appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 11 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit 12 in which the proceeding is held. 13 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person 14 charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 15 (c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may 16 not be taken to the court of appeals from— 17 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or 18 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 19 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has 20 made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 21 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 22 23 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 24 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 25 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 26 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 27 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 28 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 1 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 2 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 3 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 4 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 5 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 6 proceed further. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 7 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 3, 2019 (Doc. No. 69), is 9 ADOPTED IN FULL; 10 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; 11 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file; and, 12 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 13 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28