(HC) Tamplin v. Muniz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DWIGHT TAMPLIN, JR., No. 1:12-cv-01633-AWI-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. [Doc. 86] 14 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT 15 WILLIAM MUNIZ, ORDER 16 Respondent. [Docs. 84, 85] 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 2, 2020, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued 20 Findings and Recommendation to deny Petitioner’s motion for court order dismissing the state 21 court action with prejudice, or in the alternative, schedule an evidentiary hearing. (Docs. 84, 85, 22 86.) This Findings and Recommendation was served upon all parties and contained notice that 23 any objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of that order. 24 To date, no party has filed objections. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 27 the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper 28 analysis. 1 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 2 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 3 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 4 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 5 appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 6 (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 appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit 7 in which the proceeding is held. 8 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person 9 charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 10 (c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may 11 not be taken to the court of appeals from— 12 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or 13 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 14 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has 15 made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 16 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 17 18 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 19 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 20 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 21 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 22 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 23 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 24 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 25 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 26 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 27 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 28 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 1 | proceed further. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 2, 2020 (Doc. 86), is 4 ADOPTED IN FULL; 5 2. Petitioner’s motions to dismiss the state court action (Docs. 84, 85) are DENIED; 6 3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 7 4. This case remains CLOSED. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Oe ~_-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28