(HC) Cuellar v. Madera Co. Sheriff

Opinion

TRAVIS CUELLAR, No. 1:24-cv-01398-KES-SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, v. DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE MADERA COUNTY SHERIFF, (Doc. 6) Respondent.

Petitioner Travis Cuellar is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On November 21, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Doc. 6. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. On December 2, 2024, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 8. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability “afjurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Jd. In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 21, 2024, Doc. 6, are adopted in full; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 95 IT ISSO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ December 12, 2024 4h 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE