(HC) Romero v. Koenig ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELITO A. ROMERO, No. 1:19-cv-01642-DAD-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 14 C. KOENIG, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 15 Respondent. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (Doc. Nos. 1, 11, 12) 17 18 Petitioner Angelito A. Romero is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to 20 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 21 On February 25, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that petitioner’s second amended petition be summarily 23 dismissed because, like the original and first amended petition, it too fails to comply with § 2254 24 and Rule 2(c) the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases by failing to adequately set forth grounds for 25 relief. (Doc. No. 12 at 2–3.) In particular, the findings and recommendations concluded that 26 petitioner had failed to present a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief because his allegations are 27 vague, unclear, and nonsensical. (Id. at 3.) The findings and recommendations were served upon 28 petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days 1 | after service. Ud.) Petitioner received several extensions of time in which to file objections to the 2 | pending findings and recommendations. (See Doc. Nos. 14, 17, 19, 21, 23.) To date, petitioner 3 | has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so has passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), the court has conducted a 5 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 6 | pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to 8 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. “[A] state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas 9 | corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition,” and an 10 || appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 11 | (2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only with a 12 | certificate of appealability). Specifically, the federal rules governing habeas cases brought by 13 | state prisoners require a district court issuing an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or 14 | deny therein a certificate of appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A 15 | judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial 16 || showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must 17 | indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Here, petitioner has not made 18 | sucha showing. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued February 25, 2020 (Doc. No. 12) are 21 adopted in full; 22 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. Nos. 1, 11) is summarily dismissed; 23 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 24 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ *° Dated: _ February 10, 2021 Yh AL 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28