(HC) Quinonez v. On Habeas Corpus ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAIAH QUINONEZ, No. 1:21-cv-01163-ADA-SAB (HC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 ON HABEAS CORPUS, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 24) 16 17 Petitioner Isaiah Quinonez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 20, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition be denied. (ECF No. 24.) The findings and recommendations were 22 served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty 23 days after service. (Id.) The Court subsequently granted Petitioner an extension of time to file 24 objections. (ECF No. 26.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has 25 passed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 27 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the findings 28 and recommendations to be supported by the record and 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 allowed 4 | in certain circumstances. Miller-El vy. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 5 | If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 6 | appealability “if 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, 529 9 | U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 10 | demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 11 | 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 substantial 15 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate 16 | of appealability. 17 Accordingly: 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 20, 2022, (ECF No. 24), 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: _ March 10, 2023 37 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28