(HC) Aguil v. Noman ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO AGUIL, No. 1:21-cv-01666-JLT-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 (Doc. 14) v. 14 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF 15 R.P. NOMAN, COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 16 Respondent. ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 17 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 18 19 The assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny the petition 20 on its merits. (Doc. 14.) The Court served those Findings and Recommendations on the parties, 21 which contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days after 22 service. (Id. at 15.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de 24 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the 25 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 26 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 27 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 28 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 1 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 2 appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 3 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 4 appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 5 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 6 trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 7 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 8 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from— 9 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 10 court; or 11 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 12 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 13 right. 14 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 15 16 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 17 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 18 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 19 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 20 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 21 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 22 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 23 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 24 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 25 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 26 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 27 proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 1 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 11, 2022 (Doc. 14), are 2 adopted in full. 3 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied with prejudice. 4 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 5 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 6 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | Dated: _ March 28, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28