(HC) Howell v. Black ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE E. HOWELL, No. 1:20-cv-00731-NONE-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. HABEAS PETITION, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 14 JASON BLACK, Executive Director of FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND Atascadero State Hospital, THEN TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING 15 TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF Respondent. APPEALABILITY 16 (Doc. No. 40) 17 18 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 23, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge 21 issued findings and recommendations recommending that the pending petition be denied on its 22 merits. (Doc. No. 40.) These findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and 23 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of 24 that order. On November 1, 2021 and November 8, 2021, petitioner filed objections to the 25 findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 44, 45.) 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 27 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 28 objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 1 | supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner’s objections present no grounds for 2 || questioning the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 4 | seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 5 | his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El 6 | v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). Ifa court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 7 | only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 8 | denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the 9 || petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 10 || that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 11 | were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 12 | 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 13 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 14 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 15 | appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 16 | entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 17 | proceed further. Thus, the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 18 Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 19 1. The findings and recommendations, filed July 23, 2021 (Doc. No. 40), are 20 ADOPTED IN FULL; 21 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; 22 3. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the 23 purpose of closing the case and then to close the case; and, 24 4. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ *° Dated: _ December 1, 2021 Yh AL ae 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28