(HC) Hubbard v. People of the State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZANE HUBBARD, No. 1:20-cv-00226-NONE-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS; DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND THEN 15 ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE 16 CALIFORNIA, OF APPEALABILITY 17 Respondent. (Doc. No. 6) 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 March 2, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge 21 issued findings and recommendations recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas 22 relief be dismissed as an unauthorized second and successive petition. (Doc. No. 6.) The 23 findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any 24 objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one days from the date of service. To date, no 25 party has filed objections. 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, the court concludes that the 28 findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to 2 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. “[A] state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas 3 | corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition,” and an 4 | appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 5 | (2003); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only 6 | with a certificate of appealability). 7 Where, as here, “the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the 8 | prisoner’s underlying constitutional claims,” the court should issue a certificate of appealability 9 | “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 10 | of aconstitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 11 | court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). But 12 | “[w]here a plain procedural bar is present . . . a reasonable jurist [cannot] conclude either that the 13 | district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed 14 | further.” 7d. Because petitioner’s pending application is clearly barred on jurisdictional grounds, 15 | in that it is a second or successive petition filed without the authorization of the Ninth Circuit 16 | Court of Appeals, this court will decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 18 1. The findings and recommendations, filed March 2, 2020 (Doc. No. 6), are 19 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 22 | of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE; and, 23 4. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ *6 Dated: _ April 1, 2020 aL Al 7 ye 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28