(HC) Jackson v. Pfeiffer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DESHAWN JACKSON, No. 1:21-cv-00250-NONE-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 v. TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND THEN 15 ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE 16 OF APPEALABILITY CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden, 17 (Doc. No. 6) Respondent. 18 19 20 Petitioner Deshawn Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred 22 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On February 25, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 24 recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed as an unauthorized second or 25 successive petition. (Doc. No. 6.) Those findings and recommendations were served upon all 26 parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 27 days after service. (Id. at 3.) On March 16, 2021, after the court granted his motion for an 28 extension of time, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 9.) 1 In his objections, petitioner makes various arguments as to why his successive petition 2 should be permitted. However, the court is without jurisdiction to consider those arguments 3 because, as noted by the magistrate judge, a petitioner must first obtain authorization from the 4 Ninth Circuit before he can submit an application to file a successive petition in the district court. 5 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 7 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner's 8 objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 9 supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for 10 questioning the magistrate judge's analysis. 11 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 12 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 13 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El 14 v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 15 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 16 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the 17 petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 18 that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 19 were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 20 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 21 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 22 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 23 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 24 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 25 proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 26 Accordingly, 27 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 25, 2021 (Doc. No. 6), are 28 adopted in full; 1 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as successive; 2 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 3 purpose of closing the case and then to enter judgment and close the case; and 4 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " 6 Li. wh F Dated: _ April 9, 2021 wea rE 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28