(HC) Bretz v. United States District Court

Opinion

DREW PATTERSON BRETZ, No. 1:20-cv-00651-NONE-SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT v. TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Doc. No. 8) Respondent. Petitioner is a state detainee allegedly confined in the Fresno County Jail proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 22, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition for failure to present any cognizable grounds for relief, failure to demonstrate exhaustion of his claims by presenting them first to the highest state court, failure to name a proper respondent, and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 8.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within ten (10) days from the date of service of that order. To date, no party has filed objections. ///// wOAOe 4. OV AEE SINAN MMU OPI Oe AY OMI

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state detainee seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 1. The findings and recommendations, filed June 22, 2020 (Doc. No. 8), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE; and, 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Li fa £5 Dated: _ August 6, 2020 eee Te yy UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE