(HC) Laws v. California Department of Corrections ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY J. LAWS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00262-NONE-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND CORRECTIONS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE Respondent. CASE 16 (Doc. Nos. 1, 5) 17 18 19 Petitioner Anthony J. Laws is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to 21 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On March 11, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the pending petition be dismissed. (Doc. No. 5.) Petitioner is currently 24 appealing his underlying state criminal conviction before the California Court of Appeal (Doc. 25 No. 1 at 2), as a result of which it is clear that the judgment of conviction he seeks to challenge in 26 these proceedings is not yet final. (See Doc. No. 5 at 2–3). The pending findings and 27 recommendations were served on petitioner at his address of record and contained notice that any 28 ///// 1 | objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. (Ud. at 4.) To date, no 2 || objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), the court has conducted a 4 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 5 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to 7 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. The federal rules governing habeas cases 8 | brought by state prisoners require a district court issuing an order denying a habeas petition to 9 | either grant or deny therein a certificate of appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 10 | 11(a). A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather an 11 || appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 12 | (2003); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only 13 | with a certificate of appealability). A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the 14 | applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. 15 | § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard, id. § 2253(c)(3). 16 | In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s rejection of 17 | petitioner’s claims to be debatable or conclude that the petition should proceed further. Thus, the 18 | court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 Accordingly: 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 11, 2021 (Doc. No. 5) are 21 | adopted in full; 22 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; 23 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 25 || purpose of closing the case and then to enter judgment and close the case. 26 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ *7 | Dated: _May 28, 2021 Vile A Drag 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28