(HC) Williams v. People of the State of California, Stanislaus ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFTON WILLIAMS, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-0791 JLT HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CALIFORNIA, STANISLAUS CO., ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 ) ) (Docs. 1, 6) 16 Respondent. ) ) 17 18 Clifton Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner raises two grounds, addressing: (1) the sentence 20 imposed for Petitioner’s state court 2019 conviction and (2) pending state criminal charges. (See 21 generally Doc. 1.) 22 The assigned magistrate judge conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 23 Governing Section 2254 Cases. (Doc. 6.) The magistrate judge determined that ground one is 24 unexhausted and ground two was barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. (Id. at 3-5.) 25 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the petition be dismissed without prejudice (Id. at 26 6) and that the Court not issue a certificate of appealability. (Id.) 27 In his objections to the Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner argues that he now 28 believes he suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel, and that “it should not matter” that his 1 second ground for relief seeks to redress criminal proceedings that are still pending. (Id.) (Doc. 2 7.) 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 4 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes 5 the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner 6 does not dispute that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. He does not dispute the 7 findings of the magistrate judge that Petitioner’s criminal charges remain pending, the 8 proceedings implicate important state interests, “the state proceedings afford petitioner an 9 adequate forum to advance his claims,” and “Petitioner essentially seeks to enjoin the criminal 10 proceedings by having this Court direct the state court to dismiss the pending charges.” (See Doc. 11 6 at 5.) Thus, the Court agrees the Younger abstention doctrine applies. See Younger v. Harris, 12 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971); Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 901–902 (9th Cir. 2019). 13 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 14 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 15 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas 16 petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 17 could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that 18 jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 19 further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the 20 petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 21 than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 22 U.S. at 338. 23 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the determination that the Petition 24 should be dismissed 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 the 26 denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 27 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 28 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 26, 2022 (Doc. 6), are 1 ADOPTED in full. 2 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ Dated: _ November 23, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28