(HC) Jones v. People of the State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY JONES, No. 1:23-cv-00632-ADA-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO CALIFORNIA, ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 6) 16 17 Petitioner Anthony Jones (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 8, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to state a 22 cognizable federal habeas claim. (ECF No. 6.) The findings and recommendations were served 23 on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days of the 24 date of service of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 4.) To date, no objections have been 25 filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 27 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the findings 28 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 2 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 3 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 4 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 5 | § 2253. The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 6 | whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 7 | manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 8 | further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 9 | 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find 10 || the Court’s determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that 11 | Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a 12 | certificate of appealability. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 8, 2023, (ECF No. 6), are adopted 15 in full; 16 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 17 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 18 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 19 20 91 | TIS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: _ September 22, 2023 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28