(HC) Roberson v. Sacramento County Superior Court ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLON ROBERSON, No. 2:19-cv-02325-TLN-GGH 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on remand from the Ninth Circuit for the limited purpose 19 of granting or denying a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 13) and on Petitioner Marlon 20 Roberson’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 14). After carefully 21 considering the Ninth Circuit’s instructions and Petitioner’s arguments, the Court DENIES 22 Petitioner’s Motion. (ECF No. 14.) 23 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, initiated this action for a writ of mandamus alleging 24 Respondent Sacramento County Superior Court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment 25 rights. (ECF No. 1.) On December 5, 2019, the magistrate judge issued an Order and Findings 26 and Recommendations, ordering a district judge to be assigned to this action and recommending 27 Petitioner’s application for a writ of mandamus be dismissed and this case be closed. (See ECF 28 No. 3.) Petitioner was given fourteen days after being served with the Findings and 1 Recommendations to file written objections with the Court and was advised that failure to file 2 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Court’s order. (Id. at 2.) 3 On December 20, 2019, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, 4 arguing that: 5 a writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an 6 office, trust, or station or to compel the admission of a party to the use and 7 enjoyment of a right to which the party is entitled and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal. 8 9 (ECF No. 5 at 4.) 10 On January 16, 2020, the Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full and 11 dismissed the action, concluding the California Superior Court is not an “inferior tribunal” in 12 relation to this Court under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1085 and this Court “lacks jurisdiction to 13 compel state courts to comply with” Petitioner’s requests. (ECF No. 6 at 2 (citing ECF No. 3 at 14 2).) On the same day, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment and served the Order of Dismissal 15 on Petitioner. (ECF No. 7; see docket, No. 2:19-cv-02325-TLN-GGH.) On January 28, 2020, 16 Petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 9.) On April 6, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an 17 Order remanding the case to this Court “for the limited purpose of granting or denying” a 18 certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 13 at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 19 United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 20 482, 484 (2002)).) The Ninth Circuit directed this Court to “specify which issue or issues meet 21 the required showing” if it decides to issue a certificate of appealability or to “state its reasons 22 why a certificate of appealability should not be granted” if it decides not to issue one. (Id. at 1– 23 2.) On January 25, 2021, Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Certificate of Appealability. 24 (ECF No. 14.) 25 A certificate of appealability may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial 26 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a 27 petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should 28 have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve 1 encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal 2 quotations omitted); see also Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85. The Ninth Circuit has explicitly 3 provided: 4 [T]he issuance of a [certificate of appealability] is not precluded where the petitioner cannot meet the standard to obtain a writ of habeas corpus . . . This 5 general principle reflects the fact that the [certificate of appealability] requirement 6 constitutes a gatekeeping mechanism that prevents [an appellate court] from devoting judicial resources on frivolous issues while at the same time affording 7 habeas petitioners an opportunity to persuade [the appellate court] . . . of the potential merit of issues that may appear, at first glance, to lack merit. 8 9 Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Love v. Scribner, No. 10 06cv640-WQH-RBB, 2010 WL 1031302, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2010). As the Ninth Circuit 11 has instructed this Court, “[u]pon the filing of a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of 12 appealability, the district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for 13 issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted.” Asrar, 116 F.3d 14 at 1270. 15 Here, Petitioner notes in his Motion for Certificate of Appealability that he “intends to 16 appeal from this [Court’s] January 16, 2020 dismissal of [his] application for a writ of 17 mandamus/habeas corpus.” (ECF No. 14 at 1.) As the magistrate judge noted in the Findings and 18 Recommendations, “Petitioner’s request seeks this [Court] to vacate his Sacramento County 19 Superior Court conviction and order a new trial based on the denial of his [Faretta] motion.” 20 (ECF No. 3 at 1.) As the magistrate judge correctly determined, federal courts “do not have 21 original jurisdiction pursuant to [Cal. Civ. Proc. Code] § 1085 to issue a writ of mandamus.” (Id. 22 at 2.) Nor do federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1381 “to compel state courts to 23 comply with [P]etitioner’s requests,” as § 1381 “applies only to actions brought against an officer 24 or employee of the United States.” (Id. (internal quotations omitted).) Petitioner has therefore 25 not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 26 2253(c)(2). The Court further finds “reasonable jurists” would not debate “whether the petition 27 should have been resolved in a different manner.” See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336. 28 1 In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of 2 | Appealability. (ECF No. 14.) In accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s April 6, 2020 Order (ECF 3 | No. 13), the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the Ninth Circuit. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | DATED: March 25, 2021 ° □□ / 9 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28