(HC) Taylor v. Coleman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HORATIO RON TAYLOR, No. 1:20-cv-00432-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 14 C. COLEMAN, et al., PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 15 Respondents. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (Doc. No. 34) 17 18 19 Petitioner Horatio Ron Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a 21 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On June 5, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the pending petition be dismissed due to petitioner’s failure to state a 24 cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 34.) Specifically, the magistrate judge 25 found that petitioner’s single claim—“that the passage of a new state law entitles him to a 26 reversal of his California conviction for possession of marijuana while incarcerated” in state 27 custody—is not cognizable in these federal habeas proceedings. (Id. at 1.) The magistrate judge 28 also found that there is no “clearly established federal law” that requires California state courts to 1 overturn criminal convictions following California’s passage of Proposition 64 in 2016, legalizing 2 recreational marijuana use and reducing certain penalties for marijuana-related offenses under state 3 law. (Id. at 2–3.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and 4 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. 5 (Id. at 3.) On July 1, 2020, petitioner timely filed objections to the pending findings and 6 recommendations. (Doc. No. 35.) 7 In his objections, petitioner merely reiterates his previously made argument that because 8 California has decriminalized the possession of marijuana pursuant to Proposition 64, his 9 conviction for possession of marijuana while in state custody should be overturned. (Id.) Petitioner 10 argues that “[a]nything that is voted in as a proposition by any state, makes that law one of a 11 Constitutional law,” and that “[a]ny law that is one of the states [sic] constitution, should be 12 recognized as a federal issue.” (Id. at 2–3.) Petitioner is mistaken, and his objections fail to 13 meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. As the magistrate judge 14 correctly noted, “[f]ederal habeas relief is not available for alleged violations of state law,” and 15 here, petitioner has failed to allege that he is in custody in violation of the U.S. Constitution or of 16 clearly established federal law. (Doc. No. 34 at 2–3.) 17 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 18 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 19 objections, the court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 20 and by proper analysis. 21 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief, the court now turns to 22 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has 23 no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only 24 allowed under certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335- 25 336 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a 26 district court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 27 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 28 Cir. 1997). The court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it wOAoe YUVA VT MMU OOO MV VI 1 | debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that 2 | jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 3 | ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, the court finds that reasonable 4 | jurists would not find this court’s determination that petitioner’s claim is not cognizable in federal 5 | habeas to be debatable. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 34) are 8 adopted in full; 9 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed due to petitioner’s failure to 10 state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief; 11 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 12 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 13 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ Dated: _ July 27, 2020 J aL Al 5 7 a 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28