(HC) Jeffers v. Trate ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 F EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL JEFFERS, No. 1:23-cv-00571-JLT-EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 TRATE, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. 5) 16 17 18 Daniel Jeffers is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 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 The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the 22 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 5.) The findings and 23 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 24 were to be filed within thirty days after service. To date, no objections have been filed, and the 25 time for doing so has passed. 26 According to provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo 27 review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the findings and 28 recommendation 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 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 The court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the 15 | petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed 16 | further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the 17 | Court ORDERS: 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 5, 2023 (Doc. 5) are ADOPTED. 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 21 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | Dated: _ July 12, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28