(HC) Sutter v. Gastelo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON CARL SUTTER, No. 1:19-cv-01091-DAD-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 J. GASTELO, Warden, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 18) 16 17 Petitioner Brandon Carl Sutter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the pending petition be denied on the merits. (Doc. No. 18.) Specifically, the 22 magistrate judge found that both of the grounds for federal habeas relief asserted in petitioner’s 23 pending petition—(1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his state court conviction; and 24 (2) that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in several instances—fail on their merits. 25 (Id. at 5, 13.) Those findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained 26 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service. 27 (Id. at 13.) After seeking and receiving an extension of time to do so, petitioner filed objections 28 to the pending findings and recommendations on January 25, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 20, 22.) 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 including petitioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 In his objections, petitioner does not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s finding 6 that both of the grounds for federal habeas relief he asserts fail on the merits. The pending 7 findings and recommendations lay out the standards of review for each of the asserted grounds 8 and explains why the pending petition falls short of satisfying those standards for the granting of 9 relief. Petitioner’s objections do not dispute or even address these standards. Rather, petitioner 10 merely reiterates arguments that had already been addressed in the pending findings and 11 recommendations. (Doc. No. 22 at 3–5.) After reviewing the relevant legal standards and 12 applying those standards to petitioner’s claims of insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance 13 of counsel, the magistrate judge properly concluded that federal habeas corpus relief was 14 unavailable to petitioner in connection with those claims. (Id.) 15 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 16 a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 17 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 18 under certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 19 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 20 court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 21 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 22 Cir. 1997). If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only 23 issue a certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 24 denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the 25 petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 26 that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 27 were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 28 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). Here, petitioner has not made wOAOe ££ UV AY EPA SINR MVOC OPO a ee OY VMI 1 | sucha showing. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 Accordingly, 3 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 13, 2020 (Doc. No. 18) are 4 adopted in full; 5 2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 6 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 7 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 8 | IT IS ORDERED. a 9 Li. wh F Dated: _ April 23, 2020 See □□ oF 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28