(HC) Contreras v. People of the State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODOLFO A. CONTRERAS, No. 1:19-cv-01785-NONE-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. § 2254 PETITION 14 J. W. SULLIVAN, Warden, (Doc. Nos. 10, 18) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Rodolfo A. Contreras is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona on a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is currently serving 15 years 19 to life plus five years in state prison after a state court jury convicted him of second-degree 20 murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and driving under the influence and 21 causing bodily injury. People v. Contreras, No. F074151, 2018 WL 6567673, at *1 (Cal. Ct. 22 App. Dec. 13, 2018). Based on the operative second amended § 2254 petition, petitioner seeks 23 federal habeas relief on grounds that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to convict 24 him and the trial judge erred in admitting inadmissible evidence at trial. (Doc. No. 10 at 2–3, 5, 25 7.) The California Court of Appeal considered these claims in petitioner’s state habeas 26 proceedings but rejected them. Contreras, 2018 WL 6567673, at *1. The California Supreme 27 Court also denied review of petitioner’s claims. (Doc. No. 10 at 2–3.) 28 ///// 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, the instant federal habeas 2 petition was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. The assigned magistrate judge 3 reviewed the § 2254 petition and found that the state trial court’s decision was not (1) “contrary 4 to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by 5 the Supreme Court of the United States,” nor was it (2) “based on an unreasonable determination 6 of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” (Doc. No. 18 at 9– 7 25); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that the instant 8 § 2254 petition be denied with prejudice. (Doc. No. 18 at 24–25.) Petitioner twice objected to 9 the pending findings and recommendations, (Doc. Nos. 26, 29); respondent has responded to the 10 petitioner’s objections, (Doc. No. 27). 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 12 de novo review of the case. The court finds the pending findings and recommendations to be 13 supported by the record and proper analysis, and that petitioner’s objections fail to persuade the 14 undersigned otherwise. In his objections, petitioner re-asserts arguments that have already been 15 addressed by the magistrate judge in the pending findings and recommendations (see Doc. No. 16 18), as well as by the California Court of Appeal, see Contreras, 2018 WL 6567673. Petitioner 17 also asserts new claims in the objections that are not raised in the operative second amended 18 petition; those new claims have been considered by the magistrate judge by way of petitioner’s 19 motion for leave to file a third amended petition, which was denied as untimely and because the 20 granting of further leave to amend would be futile,1 (see Doc. No. 34 at 1–4). The denial for 21 further leave to amend was proper. For these reasons, the undersigned will adopt the findings and 22 recommendations. 23 The court is also not persuaded that petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability 24 under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253. “Section 2253(c)(1)(A) provides that unless a circuit justice or judge 25 issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken from ‘the final order in a habeas 26 corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 27 1 “A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.” Hartmann v. 28 California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). 1 court.”” Harbison vy. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). To be entitled to a certificate of 2 | appealability, a petitioner must make a substantial showing that “reasonable jurists could debate 3 | whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 4 | manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 5 | Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 6 | (1983)). Neither of the requirements exists here. The court therefore declines to issue a 7 | certificate of appealability. 8 In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 9 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 18), filed July 28, 2020, are 10 ADOPTED in full; 11 2. The second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED 12 without further leave to amend being granted; 13 3. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 14 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the 15 purpose of closing the case, then to enter judgment and to close the case. 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a - | Dated: _-Mareh 1, 2021 Yel A Low 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28