(HC)Valencia v. Robertson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL A. VALENCIA, No. 1:19-cv-00398-NONE-JPD (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 JIM ROBERTSON, (Doc. Nos. 1, 27) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Raul A. Valencia, a state prisoner, is proceeding in propria persona with this 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has been serving a 19 392-months state prison sentence imposed following his conviction on three counts of robbery 20 since 2014. (Doc. No. 21-2 at 364–65.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302, the instant federal habeas petition was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. 22 On September 2, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations recommending that petitioner’s habeas petition be denied. (Doc. No. 27.) 24 Petitioner has not filed any objections thereto despite being given the opportunity to do so. 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has reviewed this case 26 de novo and finds the pending findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 27 proper analysis. 28 ///// 1 The court must now turn to whether a certificate of appealability should be issued. A 2 | petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s 3 | denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El y. 4 | Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Courts should issue a certificate of 5 | appealability only if “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 6 | petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 7 | ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 8 | (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the 9 | court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should 10 | be denied debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, 11 | the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 12 Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 2, 2020 (Doc. No. 27) are 14 ADOPTED in full; 15 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED; 16 3. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 17 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the purposes of 18 closure and to close this case. 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ “0 Dated: _ December 4, 2020 L □□ yA 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28