(HC) Son v. Kibler ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH SON, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv- 1726 JLT HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION 13 v. ) FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 BRIAN KIBLER, ) CLOSE THE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ) ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 1, 17) 16 ) 17 Joseph Son is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with his petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner raised three claims related to the right to 19 counsel, jury instructions, and the imposition of assessment and fines. (See Doc. 17 at 2-3, citing 20 Doc. 1 at 18-19.) The magistrate judge found Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief on the 21 claims raised and recommended the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Id. at 10-16.) 22 The magistrate judge also recommended a certificate of appealability be denied “[b]ecause the 23 petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (Id. at 16.) 24 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 25 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 17 at 16.) The Court advised him that the “failure 26 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 27 16-17, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file 28 objections, and the time to do so has passed. 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 2 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 3 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. As the magistrate judge determined, Petitioner 4 | did not make the required showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Reasonable jurists 5 | would not find the Court’s determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, 6 | or that the issues raised “deserve encouragement to proceed further.” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 7 | 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 4, 2024 (Doc. 17) are 9 ADOPTED in full. 10 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 11 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 12 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ September 27, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28