(HC) Williams v. Martinez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN WILLIAMS, No. 2:22-cv-01593-DAD-KJN (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR HABEAS RELIEF 14 BRIAN MARTINEZ, (Doc. Nos. 1, 18) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he claims that he was denied his right to effective 19 assistance of counsel in state court post-conviction criminal proceedings. (Doc. Nos. 1, 17.) The 20 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On July 25, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief be denied. (Doc. No. 18.) 24 Specifically, the findings and recommendations first noted that petitioner presents a single claim 25 in his pending petition, asserting that on appeal from the state trial court’s denial of his motion for 26 resentencing under California Penal Code § 1170.95, his appointed appellate counsel provided 27 him with ineffective assistance. (Id. at 7–8.) The findings and recommendations then concluded, 28 based upon the authorities cited therein, that because petitioner had no federal constitutional right 1 to counsel in that state post-conviction proceeding, he was precluded from raising a claim of 2 ineffective assistance by his appointed post-conviction relief counsel. (Id. at 8–10.) Accordingly, 3 it was recommended that the pending petition for federal habeas relief be denied. (Id. at 10.) 4 The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner with notice that any 5 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of their service. No 6 objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed with the court, and the 7 time for doing so has passed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes 10 that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 11 analysis. Therefore, the findings and recommendations will be adopted and petitioner’s request 12 for federal habeas relief will be denied on the merits. 13 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking 14 a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his 15 petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 16 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court 17 may only issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district 18 court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the 19 issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. 20 at 327; see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required 21 to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of 22 frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. In the 23 present case, the court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination 24 that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 25 encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 26 the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court will decline to issue a certificate of 27 appealability. 28 ///// 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 25, 2023 (Doc. No. 18) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 5 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability (28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)); and 6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _November 20, 2023 Dal A. 2, oyel 9 DALE A. DROZD 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28