(HC) Washington v. Shirley ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRIEN WASHINGTON, No. 1:21-cv-01504-JLT-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 HEATHER SHIRLEY, HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND 15 Respondent. DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (Docs. 10, 13) 17 18 Petitioner Darrien Washington is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 4, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 that recommended granting respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the petition as based 23 on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (Doc. 13.) The findings and recommendations were 24 served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) 25 days of the date of service of the findings and recommendations. To date, no objections have 26 been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 28 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the findings 1 | and recommendation to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 3 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 4 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district Court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 5 || allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 6 | § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 7 | the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists 8 | of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 9 | constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 10 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain 11 | procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 12 | reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 13 | that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Jd. 14 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 15 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 16 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly: 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 4, 2022 (Doc. No. 13) are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is granted; 21 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 22 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 23 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 4, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28