(HC) Saenz v. Campbell ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT G. SAENZ, No. 1:24-cv-00395-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 v. HABEAS CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND 15 DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 16 T. CAMPBELL, Warden, Docs. 6, 13 17 Respondent. 18 19 20 21 Petitioner Robert G. Saenz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 22 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred 23 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On July 17, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 25 grant respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Docs. 6, 13. Those findings and 26 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 27 were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. On August 2, 2024, petitioner filed 28 objections to the findings and recommendations, which state that he does not object to dismissal 1 of his habeas case and will instead raise his claims in a § 1983 civil rights complaint. Doc. 16 2 at 1. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 4 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 5 Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 6 analysis. 7 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 8 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 9 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 10 allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). If a court 11 denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if 12 jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] 13 constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 14 encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 15 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 16 demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 17 his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 18 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 19 determination that the petition should be denied debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement 20 to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a 21 constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 17, 2024, Doc. 13, are adopted 3 in full; 4 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 6, is granted; 5 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 7 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 8 9 19 | TT ISSO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ November 18, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28