(HC) Gaitan v. Dalesandro ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALDEMAR GAITAN, JR., No. 1:23-cv-00926-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 (Doc. No. 12) 14 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. No. 14), 15 DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING 16 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT SAMUEL DALESANDRO, et al., AND CLOSE CASE 17 Respondents. ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 18 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 19 20 21 Petitioner Valdemar Gaitan, Jr., is a state detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 22 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was 23 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 24 Rule 302. 25 On August 8, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 26 decline to intervene in petitioner’s state proceedings and to dismiss the petition. Doc. 12. Those 27 findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any 28 objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. On August 16, 1 2023, petitioner timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 15. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court has conducted a de 3 novo review of the case. As noted by the magistrate judge, petitioner has avenues of relief 4 available for his claims in the state court proceedings and Younger abstention is therefore 5 appropriate. He states he has raised his claims in the trial court, but his claims have been rejected. 6 The state court’s denial of his claims in his pending criminal case does not equate to an absence 7 of avenues for relief. Petitioner also concedes that none of his claims have been raised at the 8 appellate court or California Supreme Court levels yet. There is no reason to believe these 9 additional avenues of relief are unavailable. Furthermore, petitioner fails to show that he is likely 10 to be irreparably harmed by this court’s failure to intervene in the ongoing state court 11 proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46–47 (1971). He argues only that “irreparable 12 harm is possible and probable when transferred through different facilities.” Doc. 15 at 2. 13 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s objections, the court concludes 14 that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 15 analysis. 16 Petitioner also filed a motion for injunctive relief on August 9, 2023. Doc. 14. The 17 motion asks for the same relief as his petition and is also denied. 18 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 19 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. 20 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas 21 petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 22 could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that 23 jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 24 further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the 25 petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 26 than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 27 U.S. at 338. 28 The court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the 1 | petition should be denied debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. 2 | Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3 | Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 8, 2023, Doc. 12, are 6 adopted in full; 7 2. Petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief, Doc. 14, is denied; 8 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 9 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 10 5. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 11 12 13 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 14 Dated: _ September 30, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28