(HC) Crayton v. Arviza ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE CRAYTON JR., No. 1:22-cv-00626-JLT-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 M. ARVIZA, HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 7, 12) 16 17 18 Lawrence Crayton Jr. is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 6, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and the petition for writ of habeas 23 corpus be dismissed. (Doc. No. 12.) On February 1, 2023, Petitioner filed timely objections. 24 (Doc. No. 13.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 27 objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and 28 proper analysis. 1 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 2 | whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 3 | 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Where a petition purportedly brought under § 2241 is merely a ‘disguised’ 4 | § 2255 motion, the petitioner cannot appeal from the denial of that petition without a COA.”). A 5 || petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s 6 | denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El □□□ 7 | Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To obtain a certificate of appealability 8 | under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner “must make a substantial showing of the denial of a 9 | constitutional right, . . . includ[ing] showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for 10 | that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the 11 | issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. 12 | McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 13 (1983)). 14 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 15 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 16 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 | Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 6, 2023 (Doc. No. 12) are 19 ADOPTED IN FULL. 20 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED. 21 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 22 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 23 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ February 27, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28