(HC) Stallworth v. Pfeiffer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME STALLWORTH, No. 1:21-cv-00789-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 AND CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 15 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (Doc. No. 3) CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, 17 Respondent. 18 19 20 Petitioner Jerome Stallworth 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 May 20, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 recommending that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a 25 cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 3.) First, petitioner captioned his petition to 26 the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District, indicating that petitioner filed his 27 petition in the wrong court. (Id. at 2; see Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Second, petitioner has not presented 28 his claims for federal relief to the California Supreme Court and thus has not exhausted those 1 claims. (Doc. No. 3 at 2; see Doc. No. 1 at 7.) Third, petitioner challenges the decision of the 2 California Board of Parole Hearings finding him unsuitable for parole, but because petitioner 3 does not allege that he was denied procedural due process guarantees, he has failed to present a 4 cognizable federal habeas claim. (See Doc. No. 3 at 3.) Those findings and recommendations 5 were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed 6 within twenty-one (21) days after service. No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do 7 so has expired. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 11 analysis. 12 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 13 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 14 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 15 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court 16 may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 17 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the 18 petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 19 that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 20 were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 21 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 22 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 23 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 24 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 25 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 26 proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 20, 2021, (Doc. No. 3), are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. The pending petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 6 purpose of closing the case and then to enter judgment and close the case; and 7 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 8 | IT IS SOORDERED. a “ 9 Li. wh F Dated: _ July 30, 2021 wee TE OO 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28