(HC) Watkins v. Tuolumne County Superior Court ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND C. WATKINS, No. 1:23-cv-01516-JLT-EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE COURT, et al., CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 15 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Respondents. 16 (Doc. 8) 17 18 Raymond C. Watkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which concluded that the 22 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice based on Younger v. Harris, 401 23 U.S. 37 (1971). (Doc. 8.) The Court served the findings and recommendations on Petitioner and 24 notified him that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days after service. Watkins 25 has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has passed. 26 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 27 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the findings and recommendations 28 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 vy. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 6 | the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists 7 | of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 8 | constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 9 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain 10 | procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 11 | reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 12 | that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. 13 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 14 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should 15 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 | Thus, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 17, 2023 (Doc. 8) are 18 ADOPTED IN FULL. 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 21 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | Dated: _ January 23, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28