(HC) Duenas v. Allen

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUSTAVO ADOLFO DUENAS, No. 1:24-cv-00335-KES-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 TRENT ALLEN, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. Doc. 23 16 17 Petitioner Gustavo Adolfo Duenas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This 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 March 7, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition be denied. Doc. 23. The findings and recommendations were 22 served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) 23 days of the date of service of the findings and recommendations. To date, no objections have 24 been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the findings 27 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 28 / / / 1 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 2 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 3 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 4 | allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 5 | U.S.C. § 2253. If the Court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the Court may issue a 6 | certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 7 | resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 8 | presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; 9 | Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the 10 | merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the 11 | existence of mere good faith on his .. . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 12 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 13 | determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be 14 | allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 15 Accordingly: 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 7, 2025, Doc. 23, are ADOPTED 17 in full; 18 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; 19 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 20 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 22 93 | SO ORDERED. _ 24 Dated: _ June 23, 2025 4h 95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28