(HC) Haapaniemi v. Fed Bureau of Prisons ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BJORN ERIK HAAPANIEMI, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0074 JLT HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING FIRST 13 v. ) AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF ) HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK 14 BRANDON PRICE, ) OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE ) 15 Respondent. ) (Docs. 11, 14) ) 16 ) 17 Bjorn Erik Haapaniemi, a federal prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a First Amended 18 Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 11.) The assigned 19 magistrate judge conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 20 2254 Cases. 21 The magistrate judge determined Petitioner failed to state a habeas claim and 22 recommended the First Amended Petition be dismissed. (Doc. 14.) The Court served the 23 Findings and Recommendations upon all parties and notified them that any objections were to be 24 filed within 14 days after service. (Id. at 4-5.) In addition, the Court advised the parties “that 25 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 26 (Id.at 5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 27 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). Petitioner has not filed objections, and the deadline to do 28 so has expired. 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 2 | Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 5 | court’s denial, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 6 | U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the 7 | court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the 8 | district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude 9 || the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 10 | USS. at 327; Slack vy. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to 11 || prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity 12 | or the existence of mere good faith on his ... part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 13 The Court finds reasonable jurists would not find the determination that the First 14 | Amended Petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or the issues presented are deserving 15 || of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 16 | the denial of a constitutional right. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 | Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 18 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 17, 2023, (Doc. 14), are 19 ADOPTED in full. 20 2. The First Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED 21 without prejudice. 22 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 24 25 26 4. The Clerk of the Court is to terminate any pending deadlines and close the case. 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. TINTITCH cRA TES NIeTRICT WMHee 1 Dated: March 27, 2023 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