(HC) Meza v. Bonwell ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REINA MARIE MEZA, No. 1:19-cv-00919-DAD-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 MICHELLE BONWELL, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 34) 16 17 18 Petitioner Reina Marie Meza is a state parolee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief (Doc. No. 1) be denied on the 23 merits. (Doc. No. 34.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that petitioner’s contention that 24 there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction in state court for making a false police 25 report was not supported by the record. (Id. at 9.) On July 20, 2020, petitioner filed objections to 26 the pending findings and recommendations.1 (Doc. No. 35.) 27 1 Petitioner also filed objections on July 22, 2020. (See Doc. No. 36.) The second set of 28 objections appear to be an exact copy of the first. (Compare Doc. No. 36, with Doc. No. 35.) 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 including petitioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 In her objections, petitioner continues to argue that there was insufficient evidence to 6 support her conviction. (See generally Doc. No. 35.) She does not, however, meaningfully 7 dispute the magistrate judge’s conclusion that “[b]ased on the totality of the evidence, a rational 8 jurist could have disbelieved Petitioner’s testimony, and accepted the testimony of law 9 enforcement that Petitioner was making false criminal reports [against her ex-husband] to obtain 10 custody of [her] child.” (Doc. No. 34 at 9); see also Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 781 (1990) 11 (“[W]here a federal habeas corpus claimant alleges that his state conviction is unsupported by the 12 evidence, federal courts must determine whether . . ., after viewing the evidence in the light most 13 favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of 14 the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 15 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief, the court now turns to 16 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has 17 no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of her petition, as an appeal is only 18 allowed under certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335- 19 336 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a 20 district court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 21 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 22 Cir. 1997). If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only 23 issue a certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 24 denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the 25 petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 26 that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 27 were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 28 ///// wOAOe ff UVES EARLE SINAN MVOC OE PC veer TOY VMI 1 | 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). Here, petitioner has not made 2 | sucha showing. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 3 Accordingly, 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 7, 2020 (Doc. No. 34) are 5 adopted in full; 6 2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 7 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 8 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 8 Dated: _ September 1, 2020 Ya AL ae 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28