(HC) Williams v. The State Bar of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01228-AWI-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 MARCUS POLLARD, et al., HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 Respondents. CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 16 APPEALABILITY 17 (ECF No. 17, 32) 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 20, 2022,1 the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that 22 recommended granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the petition without 23 prejudice based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (ECF No. 32). On May 13, 2022, 24 Petitioner filed timely objections. (ECF No. 33). 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 26 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 27 1 The Findings and Recommendation was signed on April 19, 2022, but it was not docketed until April 20, 2022. 1 objections, the Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the 2 record and proper analysis. 3 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 4 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 5 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 6 whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 7 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to 8 review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 9 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a 10 proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a 11 criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings. 12 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 13 appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from– 14 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which 15 the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or 16 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 17 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 18 only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 19 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 20 indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 21 22 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 23 The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 24 whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 25 manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 26 further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 27 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find 1 | debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed 2 | further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on April 20, 2022 (ECF No. 32) is 5 ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED; 7 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 8 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case; and 9 5. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 10 i IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _ September 14, 2022 — 7 : 7 Cb bod SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28