(HC) Perez v. Madden ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO TREJO PEREZ, No. 1:17-cv-01028-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 RAYMOND MADDEN, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 19) 16 17 18 Petitioner Antonio Trejo Perez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to 20 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 25, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that the petition be denied because petitioner’s primary claim— 23 that his constitutional rights were violated because the state trial court erroneously excluded a 24 witness’ prior statements—was without merit. (Doc. No. 19.) Specifically, the pending findings 25 and recommendations found that “a reasonable jurist could conclude that excluding [that 26 witness’] prior statements was appropriate because the excluded statement[s’] probative value 27 was outweighed by the concern for jury confusion.” (Id. at 6.) The magistrate judge found that 28 petitioner’s additional claim—that the state trial court miscalculated the amount of restitution he 1 must pay—did not challenge the legality of his confinement and thus was not a cognizable habeas 2 claim. (Id. at 7.) The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner with notice that 3 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the service thereof. (Id. at 8.) 4 On October 7, 2019, petitioner filed objections to the magistrate’s findings and recommendations. 5 (Doc. No. 20). 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 7 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 8 petitioner’s objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 9 supported by the record and proper analysis. In his objections, petitioner merely repeats the same 10 arguments that the pending findings and recommendations considered and found to be 11 insufficient to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (See Doc. No. 20.) Petitioner’s 12 objections therefore do not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s findings and 13 recommendations, which the undersigned will adopt in full. 14 Having concluded that the pending petition must be denied, the court now turns to 15 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas 16 corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal 17 is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). 18 Specifically, the federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district 19 court issuing an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of 20 appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A judge shall grant a certificate of 21 appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 22 constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy 23 this standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional 24 claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: [t]he petitioner 25 must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 26 constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, 27 petitioner has not made such a showing. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be 28 issued. 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The September 25, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 19) are adopted 3 in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case; and 6 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 7 | ITIS SO ORDERED. si am 8 Li. wh F Dated: _ March 9, 2020 wea rE 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28