(HC) Segura v. Lizarraga ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB JUAREZ SEGURA, No. 1:20-cv-00990-DAD-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JOE A. LIZARRAQA, (Doc. No. 21) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Jacob Juarez Segura 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. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter 19 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302. 21 On April 28, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that the pending petition for habeas relief be denied on the merits. (Doc. No. 21.) 23 Those findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any 24 objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. (Id.) After having been 25 granted several extensions of time in which to file objections, petitioner filed objections to the 26 pending findings and recommendations on September 22, 2021. (Doc. No. 32.) Therein, 27 petitioner repeats the arguments addressed at length by the assigned magistrate judge. Indeed, 28 petitioner raised fourteen (14) claims in his petition and the findings and recommendations 1 | thoroughly addressed each and every one, leading to a seventy-three (73) page order that the 2 | undersigned has carefully reviewed for error. (Doc. No. 21.) For the same reasons discussed in 3 | those pending findings and recommendations, petitioner’s objections are not persuasive. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this court has conducted a 5 || de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 6 | objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 7 | record and proper analysis. 8 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 9 | acertificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 10 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 11 allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 12 | § 2253. The court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 13 | whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 14 || manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 15 | further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 16 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find 17 || the court’s determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that 18 | petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate 19 | of appealability. 20 Accordingly, 21 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 28, 2021 (Doc. No. 21) are 22 adopted in full; 23 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 24 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 25 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 26 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ November 19, 2021 Pl A L 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE