(HC) Godfrey v. Warden PBSP ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA MICHAEL GODFREY, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01197-JLT-HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION 13 v. ) FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND 14 WARDEN PBSP, ) DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF ) APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 1, 44.) 16 ) 17 Joshua Michael Godfrey 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 magistrate judge issued Findings and 19 Recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and that the 20 court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 44 at 18.) The Court notified the parties that 21 any objections were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 18-19.) To date, the 22 Petitioner has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has passed. 23 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 24 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are 25 supported by the record and proper analysis. 26 A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather an 27 appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only with a 1 || certificate of appealability). A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant ha 2 || made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the 3 || certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). While the 4 || petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than 5 || the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 33: 6 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s rejection of Petitioner’s 7 claims is debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed 8 || further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional righ 9 || Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 10 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 29, 2022 (Doc. 44) are ADOPTE 12 in full. 13 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 15 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | Dated: _ August 2, 2022 ( LAW ph L. wan 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28