Brandon Nixon v. Raul Morales

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01531
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON NIXON, No. 2:24-CV-1531-KJM-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 RAUL MORALES, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On July 29, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the 22 time specified therein. See ECF No. 26. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations 23 have been filed as well as a response. See ECF Nos. 27, 29. Petitioner has also attempted to file 24 a reply to respondent’s response, but such a filing is not allowed under Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 72 and Local Rule 304 and petitioner did not seek leave from the court to make such a 26 filing. The court thus has not taken petitioner’s reply into consideration when deciding whether 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 or not to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Petitioner also requested 2 oral argument on his petition. See ECF No. 25. That request is denied as the court deems oral 3 argument to be unnecessary to determine whether to grant petitioner relief. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 4 230(g). 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 6 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 7 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 As provided by Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court 9 has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this 10 decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 11 Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28 12 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 13 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of 14 appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 15 such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 16 procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 17 jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 18 ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 19 claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 20 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). For the reasons 21 set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the Court finds that issuance of 22 a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 24 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 29, 2025, ECF No. 26, are 25 adopted in full. 26 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is denied. 27 3. Petitioner’s request for oral arguments, ECF No. 25, is denied. 28 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 1 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 2 This order resolves ECF Nos. 25, 26. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: September 18, 2025. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28