(HC) Harris v. Clark

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 MARVIN HARRIS, No. 1:20-cv-00667-NONE-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 14 v. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 (Doc. No. 9) [16] KEN CLARK, Warden, [17] Respondent. [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 May 15, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge 21 issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim 22 for relief. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and 23 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of 24 service of that order. On May 27, 2020, petitioner filed objections. (Doc. No. 10.) 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, including petitioner’s 27 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 28 record and proper analysis. The findings and recommendations reason that federal habeas relief 1 is not available to petitioner because his claim alleges only errors in the application of state law 2 pertaining to youthful offenders. Petitioner’s objections present no grounds for questioning the 3 magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusion that he has failed to assert a cognizable claim for 4 federal habeas relief. 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); 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . 9 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 10 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. [11] 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 12 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 13 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 14 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 15 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 16 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 17 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 18 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 19 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 20 proceed further. Thus, the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 22 1. The findings and recommendations, filed May 15, 2020 (Doc. No. 9), are 23 ADOPTED IN FULL; 24 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// wOAOe 4. OU VOY SINARS MVOC tee PO veer TOY VMI 1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 2 | of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE; and, 3 4. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " 5 Li. wh F Dated: _ June 2, 2020 wee TE OO 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE