(HC) Bretz v. United States District Court ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DREW PATTERSON BRETZ, No. 1:20-cv-00651-NONE-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 v. TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND 15 DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, (Doc. No. 8) 17 Respondent. 18 19 Petitioner is a state detainee allegedly confined in the Fresno County Jail proceeding in 20 propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 21 22, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the 22 petition for failure to present any cognizable grounds for relief, failure to demonstrate exhaustion 23 of his claims by presenting them first to the highest state court, failure to name a proper 24 respondent, and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 8.) The findings and 25 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to 26 be filed within ten (10) days from the date of service of that order. To date, no party has filed 27 objections. 28 ///// wOAOe 4. OV AEE SINAN MMU OPI Oe AY OMI 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state detainee 5 | seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 6 | his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 7 | U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a 8 | certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a 9 | constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 10 | establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 11 || should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 12 || deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 13 | (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 14 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 15 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 16 | appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 17 | entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 18 | proceed further. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 20 1. The findings and recommendations, filed June 22, 2020 (Doc. No. 8), are 21 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 22 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 23 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 24 | of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE; and, 25 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 26 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ 27 Li fa £5 Dated: _ August 6, 2020 eee Te yy 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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