(HC) Medina v. Davis ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JUAN CARLOS MEDINA, No. 2:16-cv-02859-TLN-DB 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER 13 RON DAVIS, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner Juan Carlos Medina (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 17 an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 18 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 19 302. 20 On April 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 21.) Neither party has 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 25 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 27 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 28 / / / 1 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 2 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 3 judge’s analysis. 4 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has 5 considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this 6 decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 7 Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28 8 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 9 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of 10 appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 11 such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 12 procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 13 jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 14 ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 15 claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 16 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). 17 For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations (ECF 18 No. 21), the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 22, 2020 (ECF No. 21), are adopted in 21 full; 22 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and 23 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 24 2253. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: June 16, 2020 27 28