(HC) Duran v. Clark ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL EDWARD DURAN, No. 1:22-cv-00618-JLT-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 14 KEN CLARK, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF 15 Respondent. COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 16 ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 (Doc. 5) 18 19 20 Petitioner Paul Edward Duran is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 21 of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United 22 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On June 2, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to state a 25 cognizable federal habeas claim. (Doc. 5.) Petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. 6.) 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, including petitioner’s 28 objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and 1 | 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. A court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 7 | whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 8 | manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 9 | further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 10 | 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 11 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 12 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 13 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 2, 2022 (Doc. 5) are ADOPTED 16 IN FULL. 17 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 19 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | Dated: __July 5, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28