(HC) Williams v. United States District Court ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01143-AWI-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE 15 Respondent. OF APPEALABILITY 16 (Doc. No. 10) 17 18 Petitioner Patrick Williams is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 17, 2021, the 20 magistrate judge assigned to the case issued findings and recommendation to dismiss the petition. 21 Doc. No. 10. The findings and recommendation were served upon all parties and contained 22 notice that any objections were to be filed within ten days from the date of service of that order. 23 To date, no party has filed objections. The Court takes notice that the order served on Petitioner 24 was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as “Undeliverable.” 25 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review 26 of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the findings and 27 recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 28 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 1 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 2 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 3 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 4 appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 5 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on 6 appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 7 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding 8 to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense 9 against the United States, or to test the validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings. 10 (c) 11 (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 12 appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from— 13 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in 14 which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or 15 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 16 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph 17 (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 18 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 19 indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 20 21 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 22 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 23 § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable 24 jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved 25 in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to 26 proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 27 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 28 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 1 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 2 | appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find that the Court’s determination that Petitioner is 3 | not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 4 | proceed further. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendation (Doc. No. 10), filed on February 17, 2021, are 7 ADOPTED in full; 8 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED; 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and CLOSE the file; and 10 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 11 5. This order terminates the action in its entirety. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | Dated: _March 22, 2021 —. 7 □ Z Cb Led SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28