(HC)Lewis v. Cisneros ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN ALONZO LEWIS, No. 1:22-cv-00760-JLT-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 4) 14 THERESA CISNEROS, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, 15 Respondent. DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 16 ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 18 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the 19 petition for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim because the petition was attempting to 20 challenge an error of purely state law. (Doc. 4.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline 21 to do so has expired. 22 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 23 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the findings and 24 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 25 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 26 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 27 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 28 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 1 appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 2 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 3 appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 4 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 5 trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 6 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 7 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from— 8 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 9 court; or 10 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 11 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 12 right. 13 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 14 15 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 16 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 17 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 18 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 19 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 20 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 21 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. Thus, 27 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 24, 2022, (Doc. 4), are 28 ADOPTED IN FULL. 1 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 3 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: _ August 10, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28