(HC) Johnson v. Matteson ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADRIAN JOHNSON, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-01009-JLT-HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. ) RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, ) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 GISELLE MATTESON, ) CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ) CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 15 Respondent. ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ) 16 ) (Docs. 1, 11, 18) 17 Adrian Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 The assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that 21 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be granted, and the Petition be dismissed for lack of federal 22 habeas jurisdiction or, in the alternative, as untimely. (Doc. 18.) Those Findings and 23 Recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 24 were to be filed within 14 days after service. Petitioner has not filed objections, and the deadline 25 to do so has expired. 26 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 27 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the magistrate judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 2 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. The federal rules governing habeas cases 3 | brought by state prisoners require a district Court issuing an order denying a habeas petition to 4 | either grant or deny therein a certificate of appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 5 | 11(a). A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather an 6 | appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El vy. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 7 | (2003); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only 8 | with acertificate of appealability). A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the 9 | applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. 10 | § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard, 28 U.S.C. 11 | § 2253(c)(3). In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the 12 | Court’s rejection of petitioner’s claims to be debatable or conclude that the petition should 13 || proceed further. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 20, 2023, (Doc. 18), are 15 ADOPTED IN FULL. 16 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. 17 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 18 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | Dated: _ July 20, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28