(HC) White v. Arnold

[6] 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] 10 ELIJAH WHITE, No. 1:19-cv-01089-AWI-JLT (HC) 11 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 5) [12] ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE 15 CASE ERIC ARNOLD, Warden, 16 ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE Respondent. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [18] 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . On August 23, 2019, the Magistrate Judge assigned 21 to the case issued Findings and Recommendation to dismiss the petition. (Doc. No. 5.) This 22 Findings and Recommendation was served upon all parties and contained notice that any 23 objections were to be filed within twenty-one days from the date of service of that order. To date, 24 no party has filed objections. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 27 the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper 28 analysis. Although the petition mentions due process and equal protection, “the crux of the 1 complaint is that Defendants’ actions violated the plain language of [Proposition 57], not that they 2 deprived [Petitioner] of due process or otherwise infringed his federal constitutional rights.” 3 Eleson v. Lizarraga, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149831 , *10-*11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2019) (quoting 4 Stewart v. Borders, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134742 , *11 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2019)). 5 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 6 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 7 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 8 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). A successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that is disguised as a § 9 2241 petition required a certificate of appealability. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th 10 Cir. 2008); Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001). The controlling statute in 11 determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , which provides as 12 follows: 13 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit 14 in which the proceeding is held. 15 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person 16 charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. [17] (c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may 18 not be taken to the court of appeals from— 19 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or [20] (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. [21] (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has 22 made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 23 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). [25] If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of [26] appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. [27] 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that [28] 1 | “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 2 | been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 3 | encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 4 | Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 5 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 6 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 7 | appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 8 | entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 9 | proceed further. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 5), is 12 ADOPTED IN FULL; 13 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 14 3, The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE the file; 15 and, 16 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. [17] 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _November 6, 2019 —= ZS Cb □□ SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE