(HC) Herrera v. Matteson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMANDO E. HERRERA, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01150-JLT-HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING AMENDED 13 v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 GISELLE MATTESON, ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 20, 42) 16 ) 17 The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations on September 26, 2022, 18 recommending that the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and that the Court 19 decline to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 42.) The Court served the Findings and 20 Recommendations on all parties. It contained notice that any objections were to be filed within 14 21 days after service. In addition, the Court advised the parties “that failure to file objections within 22 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 23 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).). 24 To date, Petitioner has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has passed. 25 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 26 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the magistrate judge’s Findings and 27 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 28 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, and an 1 | appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 2 | (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only 3 || issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 4 | resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 5 || presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; 6 | Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the 7 | merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the 8 || existence of mere good faith on his... part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 9 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the rejection of 10 || Petitioner’s claims to be debatable or conclude the petition should proceed further. In addition, 11 | Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 12 | Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Based upon the foregoing, the 13 | Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 26, 2022 (Doc. 42), are 15 ADOPTED in full. 16 2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 20) is DENIED. 17 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _ October 26, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28