(HC) Allen v. Samuel ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE RAY ALLEN, No. 1:21-cv-01088-ADA-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 D. SAMUEL, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 14) 16 17 18 Petitioner Clarence Ray Allen is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 19 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 March 3, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that the petition be denied. (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and recommendations 23 were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 24 thirty days after service. Petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 17.) 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 recommendations 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 whether 2 | acertificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 3 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 4 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El vy. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 5 | § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 6 | appealability jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 7 | petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 8 || to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 9 | 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he 10 | must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good 11 | faith on his... part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 12 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 13 | determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented 14 | are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required 15 | substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court declines to issue a 16 | certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 3, 2022 (Doc. No. 14) are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 22 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 24 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. 26 Dated: _ September 13, 2022 37 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28