(HC) Conley v. Stanislaus County Public Defenders Office

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 JOSEPH CONLEY, No. 1:22-cv-00680-ADA-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 (Doc. No. 8) 14 v. ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [15] ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 16 ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE STANISLAUS COUNTY PUBLIC 17 DEFENDER’S OFFICE, et al., ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 18 Respondents. [19] 20 Petitioner Joseph Conley is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 21 a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . This matter was referred to a 22 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On June 28, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 24 dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. (Doc. No. 8.) Those findings and 25 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 26 were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. On July 20, 2022, petitioner responded 27 to the findings and recommendations by lodging an amended petition. (Doc. No. 9.) 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 1 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 2 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 3 analysis. It is clear from the pleadings that petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies by first 4 seeking relief in the state courts. 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 allowed in only certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 8 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 9 appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , which provides as follows: 10 (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 11 appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 12 (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 13 trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings. [14] (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 15 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from— 16 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 17 court; or 18 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 19 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 20 right. 21 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). [22] 23 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may issue a certificate of appealability 24 only when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 25 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 26 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 27 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 28 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 1 | Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 2 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 3 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 4 | appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 5 | entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 6 | proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 28, 2022, (Doc. No. 8) are 9 adopted in full; 10 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 11 3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 12 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 13 This order terminates the action in its entirety. [15] 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: _ September 14, 2022 is UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE