(HC) Harper v. Mariposa County Superior Court ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL HARPER, No. 1:20-cv-00808-NONE-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 v. COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND 15 DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 MARIPOSA COUNTY SUPERIOR (Doc. No. 6) 17 COURT, 18 Respondent. 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 21 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 18, 2020, the magistrate judge assigned to 22 the case issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition, reasoning that petitioner 23 had named the wrong respondent and that his sole claim—a due process claim related to a prison 24 disciplinary proceeding—was plainly without merit because the exhibits attached to the petition 25 demonstrated that all the relevant due process requirements were met. (Doc. No. 6.) The 26 findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any 27 objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. To date, 28 no party has filed objections. MASS LOU VUOUOUEAVV IT OINNG RAVUUPIOTIN 2 □□□ VOre Hey eo VIS 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 prisoner 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El 7 | v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). 8 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 9 | appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 10 | 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 11 || “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 12 || been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 13 || encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 14 | Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 15 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 16 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 17 | appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 18 | entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 19 | proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 20 Accordingly: 21 1. The findings and recommendations, filed June 18, 2020 (Doc. No. 6), are adopted; 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 this case; and, 25 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 26 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ August 21, 2020 J aL, A 4 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