(HC) Jimenez v. Campbell

Opinion

DAVID JIMENEZ, No. 1:24-cv-00840-KES-SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE, DECLINING v. TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE TAMMY CAMPBELL, Warden, Doc. 15 Respondent.

Petitioner David Jimenez is a state prisoner proceeding 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 May 5, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to deny the petition on its merits. Doc. 15. 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 May 29, 2025, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 16. On June 6, 2025, respondent filed a reply to petitioner’s objections. Doc. 17. 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. Petitioner’s objections rehash arguments already appropriately considered and rejected by the findings and recommendations. 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, 335-336 (2003). If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the petition is deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 5, 2025, Doc. 15, are adopted in full; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied with 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. g | SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ July 21, 2025 4h : UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE