(HC)Juarez v. Eastern District of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN MANUEL JUAREZ, No. 1:22-cv-01619-ADA-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 15 Respondent. TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (ECF Nos. 1, 5) 17 18 19 Petitioner Juan Manuel Juarez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 20 of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 9, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the pending petition be dismissed because it fails to state a federal habeas 24 claim. (ECF No. 5.) The findings and recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained 25 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) On 26 March 1, 2023, Petitioner filed objections that, to the extent discernable, restated the claims 27 asserted in the petition, and additionally “raise[d] [his] miranda rights” as to the findings and 28 recommendations. (ECF No. 6.) 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Thus, having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 3 | objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 | proper analysis. 5 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 6 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 7 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 8 || allowed in certain circumstances. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 9 | U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without 10 || reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability 11 | “afjurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 12 | of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 13 || was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the 14 | present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that 15 | the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to 16 | proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 | Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 9, 2023 (ECF No. 5), are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed; 21 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 22 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 23 24 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. 26 Dated: _ May 30, 2023 37 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28