(HC) Martinez v. Sherman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL MARTINEZ, No. 1:20-cv-00334-DAD-JLT 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 14 SHERMAN, PETITION, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 8) 16 17 18 Petitioner Manuel Martinez 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. § 2254. 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 April 1, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that the petition be summarily dismissed because it fails to raise a cognizable 23 claim for federal habeas relief and petitioner’s first and third claims for relief are barred by the 24 applicable statute of limitations. (Doc. No. 8). The findings and recommendations were served 25 upon petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty- 26 one (21) days after service. (Id. at 4.) To date, petitioner has not filed any objections and the 27 time in which to do so has passed. 28 ///// wOASe 4. OU VEG ITPA VRP OPI ee AY eT 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), the court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 | pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to 5 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. “[A] state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas 6 | corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition,” and an 7 | appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 8 | (2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only with a 9 | certificate of appealability). Specifically, the federal rules governing habeas cases brought by 10 | state prisoners require a district court issuing an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or 11 | deny therein a certificate of appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A 12 || judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial 13 || showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must 14 | indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Here, petitioner has not made 15 | sucha showing. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued April 1, 2020 (Doc. No. 8) are adopted 18 in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 20 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 21 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ June 16, 2020 YL A Dou 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28