(HC) Inman v. Koenig ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD JERRELL INMAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-01543-LJO-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING 13 v. PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR STAY, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 C. KOENIG, HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND 15 Respondent. DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (ECF Nos. 10, 11) 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 15, 2019,1 the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 20 Recommendation that recommended dismissing the petition as an unauthorized successive 21 petition and for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. (ECF No. 10). 22 In response to the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner filed a request for a stay of 23 the instant proceedings so that Petitioner “can obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of 24 Appeal due to this case being a successive petition.” (ECF No. 11 at 1).2 Attached to the request 25 is a copy of Petitioner’s application for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition that is 26 addressed to the Ninth Circuit. (Id. at 2–3). 27 1 The Findings and Recommendation was signed on November 14, 2019 and entered on the docket on November 15, 2019. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 2 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 3 the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Further, the 4 Court finds that a stay is not warranted. In the event that the Ninth Circuit grants Petitioner leave 5 to file a successive § 2254 petition, Petitioner can return to the district court and file his habeas 6 petition. 7 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 8 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 9 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 10 whether to issue a certificate of 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 12 review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 13 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a 14 proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a 15 criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings. 16 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 17 appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from– 18 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which 19 the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or 20 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 21 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 22 only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 23 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 24 indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 25 26 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 27 If a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying 1 would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 2 right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 3 procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar 4 is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 5 could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 6 petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. 7 In the present case, reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that 8 Petitioner’s habeas petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be 9 allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on November 15, 2019 (ECF No. 10) is 12 ADOPTED IN FULL; 13 2. Petitioner’s request for stay of proceedings (ECF No. 11) is DENIED; 14 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 15 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case; and 16 5. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27