(HC) Miguel Angel Villegas v. L.W. Sullivan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ANGEL VILLEGAS, No. 1:19-cv-00668-NONE-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 J. W. SULLIVAN, (Doc. Nos. 1, 20) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Miguel Angel Villegas, a state prisoner without counsel, has petitioned the 18 court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) In 2015, petitioner was 19 convicted of attempted robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery in the Tulare County Superior 20 Court and was subsequently sentenced to an aggregate prison sentence of 12 years. (Doc. No. 22 21 at 1–2) (citing People v. Villegas, No. F072155, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 165, at *2 (Jan. 22 10, 2018)). In this federal habeas proceeding, petitioner challenges his judgment of conviction, 23 arguing that the state trial court gave erroneous jury instructions and denied his pre- and post-trial 24 motions without proper justification. (Doc. No. 1.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 25 Local Rule 302, the instant federal habeas petition was referred to a United States Magistrate 26 Judge. On June 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge found that the California Court of 27 Appeal’s decision rejecting petitioner’s claims in this regard to be reasonable and, thus, 28 recommended to deny petitioner’s habeas petition. (Doc. No. 22.) Petitioner has not filed any 1 | objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations despite being given the 2 | opportunity to do so. 3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has reviewed 4 | this case de novo and finds the pending findings and recommendations to be supported by the 5 | record and proper analysis and will adopt the findings and recommendations. 6 The court must now turn to whether a certificate of appealability should be issued. A 7 | petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s 8 | denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El y. 9 | Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Courts should issue a certificate of 10 | appealability only if “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 11 | petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 12 | ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 13 | (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the 14 | court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should 15 | be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. 16 | Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows: 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 22) are ADOPTED 19 in full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED; 21 3. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 22 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the purposes of 23 closure and to close this case. 24 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ October 23, 2020 J aL Al 7 ye 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28