(HC) Holguin v. Pfeiffer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FELIPE ROMAN HOLGUIN, No. 1:20-cv-01715-NONE-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 Respondent. ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE CASE 16 (Doc. Nos. 1, 24) 17 18 Petitioner Felipe Roman Holguin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) 20 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 21 and Local Rule 302. 22 On August 31, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 24.) The pending 24 findings and recommendations were served on petitioner at his address of record and contained 25 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id. at 21.) 26 That time has passed, and petitioner has not filed objections. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 28 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 1 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 2 Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to 3 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. The federal rules governing habeas cases 4 | brought by state prisoners require a district court issuing an order denying a habeas petition to 5 | either grant or deny therein a certificate of appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 6 | 11(a). A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather an 7 | appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 8 | (2003); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only 9 | with a certificate of appealability). A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the 10 | applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. 11 | § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard, 28 U.S.C. 12 | § 2253(c)(3). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 13 | determination that the petition is dismissed to be debatable or conclude that the petition should 14 | proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 15 Accordingly: 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 31, 2021 (Doc. No. 24), are 17 adopted in full; 18 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is granted; 19 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 20 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 21 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 22 purpose of closing the case and then to close the case. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 /)} A fF; Dated: _ September 27, 2021 Ae 1" Sra 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28