(HC) Gonzalez v. Godwin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO ZAMBRANO GONZALEZ, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00271-KES-HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION 13 v. ) FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 RON GODWIN, ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 1, 25) 16 ) 17 Petitioner Pedro Zambrano Gonzalez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. This 19 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. 21 On February 28, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as without 23 merit. Doc. 25. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained 24 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. 25 Petitioner has not filed objections, and the deadline to do so has expired. 26 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of the case. 27 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are 28 1 | supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court turns to whether a 3 | certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 4 | absolute entitlement to appeal; rather, an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller- 5 | Ely. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas 6 || petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason 7 | could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that 8 | jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 9 | further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the 10 | petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 11 | than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his .. . part.” Miller-El, 537 12 | US. at 338. 13 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 14 | petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 15 || encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 16 | the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 17 || appealability. 18 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 28, 2025, Doc. 25, are 20 ADOPTED in full. 21 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED. 22 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 24 25 26 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 27 Dated: _ March 29, 2025 4h | | 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28