(HC) Brooks v. Jones

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ROY LESTER BROOKS, No. 2:24-cv-02084-DC-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS PETITION 14 GENA JONES, (Doc. Nos. 11, 15) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Roy Lester Brooks is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 April 24, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss Petitioner’s federal habeas petition (Doc. No. 22 11) be granted and this action be dismissed because Petitioner failed to state a cognizable claim 23 for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 15.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found Petitioner’s 24 petition “is premised exclusively on an issue of state law, namely, whether the trial court should 25 exercise its discretion under California Penal Code [section] 1172.1” and Petitioner’s attempt to 26 portray his claim as a violation of his federal constitutional rights unavailing. (Id. at 3–4.) The 27 pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 28 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 5.) To date, no 1 objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so 2 has now passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 6 analysis. 7 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 8 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 9 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 10 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only 11 issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of 12 a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on 13 procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a 14 certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states 15 a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 16 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 17 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the 18 court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. Thus, 19 the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 20 Accordingly, 21 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2025 (Doc. No. 15) are 22 adopted in full; 23 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is granted; 24 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice; 25 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 5 | Dated: _ July 17, 2025 RVI os Dena Coggins 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28