(HC) Ioane v. Puentes ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL S. IOANE, SR., No. 1:19-cv-00846-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 DAN JOSLIN, et al., HABEAS PETITION 15 Respondents. (Doc. No. 6) 16 17 18 Petitioner Michael S. Ioane, Sr. is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that the petition for federal habeas relief be denied due to lack of subject-matter 23 jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and 24 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. 25 On February 14, 2020, petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 8). 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 ///// 1 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 2 record and proper analysis. 3 In his objections, petitioner does not dispute the magistrate judge’s findings and 4 recommendations but rather only requests consolidation of the instant case with Ioane v. Merlak, 5 No. 1:19-cv-01585-GSA (PC) (E.D. Cal. 2019), a § 1983 action petitioner has pending in this 6 district. (Doc. No. 8.) However, these two cases do not share common questions of law and fact 7 and, therefore, consolidation is not justified under the circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 8 If plaintiff wishes to file a new § 1983 action to pursue his claims that he was provided 9 “substandard medical care,” he is free to do so, subject to the instructions given by the magistrate 10 judge in the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 6 at 3.) 11 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 12 a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 13 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 14 under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 15 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 16 court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 17 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 18 Cir. 1997). 19 If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only issue a 20 certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 21 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 22 establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 23 should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 24 deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 25 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 26 In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 27 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 28 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 4:40 MARE ET MMU OC eter □□□ VM VI 1 | entitled to federal habeas corpus relief wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 2 || petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The court therefore declines to issue 3 | acertificate of appealability. 4 Accordingly: 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 6) are 6 adopted in full; 7 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied for lack of subject- 8 matter jurisdiction; 9 3, The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and 10 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si am 2 Dated: _ April 21, 2020 J aL A 4 7 a 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28