(HC) Jenkins v. Martinez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALONZO JENKINS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01591 JLT SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 L.A. MARTINEZ, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. 15) 16 17 Alonzo Jenkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The magistrate judge observed, “Petitioner was 19 sentenced in 1998 and it appears that more than twenty years have passed since direct review of 20 Petitioner’s convictions became final.” (Doc. 15 at 4.) In addition, the magistrate judge 21 determined Petitioner did not show the petition was subject to statutory or equitable tolling. (Id. 22 at 4-5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge found the petition was untimely and recommended it be 23 dismissed. (Id. at 5.) 24 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petition and notified him that 25 any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 15 at 5.) The Court advised Petitioner the “failure 26 to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 27 order.” (Id. at 6, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner 28 did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court must address 4 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. 5 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 6 | district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 7 | Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the Court 8 | denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, 9 | the Court should issue a certificate of appealability jurists of reason would find it debatable 10 || whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 11 || reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 12 | Slack vy. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the 13 | district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude 14 | either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be 15 | allowed to proceed further.” /d. In the present case, reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 16 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should 17 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 18 || Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 1, 2024 (Doc. 15) are 20 ADOPTED IN FULL. 21 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 23 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 19, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28