(HC) Favor VEXATIOUS LITIGANT v. Sullivan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR, Case No. 1:19-cv-01161-LJO-JDP VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 PETITION AT SCREENING v. 14 ECF No. 9 J. W. SULLIVAN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Brandon Alexander Favor, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The court has referred this matter to a 19 magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 10, 2019, 20 the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the court dismiss the 21 petition and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 9. On December 27, 2019, 22 petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 10. In his objections, 23 petitioner failed to address the deficiencies in his petition described in the findings and 24 recommendations. Id. Therefore, petitioner’s objections are dismissed. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 28 1 court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 2 analysis. 3 In addition, a prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to 4 appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain 5 circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Rule 11 6 Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district court issue or deny a certificate of 7 appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22- 8 1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the court 9 denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, 10 the court will issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable 11 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 12 reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 13 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 14 decision debatable or conclude that the petition should proceed further. Thus, the court declines 15 to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 10, 2019, ECF No. 10, are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 20 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 21 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28