Fidel Tafoya v. David Holbrook, Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00932
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FIDEL TAFOYA Case No. 1:22-cv-00932-JLT-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 DAVID HOLBROOK, Warden COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 15 Respondent. APPEALABILITY (Doc. 24) 16 17 Fidel Tafoya is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with his petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 2, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations 21 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as without merit, and that the 22 Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 24). Those Findings and 23 Recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 24 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. In addition, the parties were “advised that 25 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 26 (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 27 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). After receiving a requested extension, Petitioner filed objections on June 1, 2025. (Doc. 27). 1 In his objections, Petitioner challenges the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the state 2 court’s rejection of his Sixth Amendment claim - which alleged he was denied the right to control 3 his defense and assert innocence as the defense objective - was not contrary to, or an 4 unreasonable application of, McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018). (Doc. 27 at 3-6). 5 However, the magistrate judge did not err on 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) deferential review in finding 6 reasonable the state court’s determination under McCoy that counsel’s presentation of Petitioner’s 7 chosen defense objective, a “strong, positive defense of complete innocence” (Doc. 1 at 9) did not 8 deny Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights. Particularly, the magistrate judge did not err in 9 finding reasonable the state court’s finding that McCoy was not a basis for relief on the facts and 10 circumstances of the case and given counsel’s trial management purview in arguing Petitioner’s 11 defense objective. (See Doc. 24 at 6-7, 12-13, citing United States v. Audette, 923 F.3d 1227, 12 1236 (9th Cir. 2019); see McCoy, 584 U.S. at 422-24). 13 Petitioner also challenges the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the state court decision 14 was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. (Id. at 5-6). However, the 15 magistrate judge did not err on 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) deferential review in finding reasonable the 16 state court’s fact finding regarding the defense objective, strategy, and counsel’s presentation 17 thereof, on the record in the case. (Doc. 24 at 10-12). 18 Petitioner also objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that sufficient evidence 19 supported his burglary conviction. (Id. at 6-8). However, the magistrate judge did not err on 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254(d) deferential review in finding reasonable the state court’s finding of sufficient 21 evidence of intent to commit the target crimes. (Doc. 24 at 13-16, citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 22 U.S. 307 (1979)). 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 24 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 25 objections, the Court holds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and 26 proper analysis. 27 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court now turns to whether a 1 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 2 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El vy. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 3 | § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 4 | appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 5 || petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 6 | to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 7 | U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 8 | demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 9 | his... part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 10 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 11 | determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be 12 | allowed to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial 13 | of aconstitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 14 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 2, 2025 (Doc. 24) are 16 ADOPTED in full. 17 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 18 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the case. 19 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _September 30, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28