(HC) Jones v. Cates

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPFON JONES, Case No. 1:22-cv-0839 JLT HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 B. CATES, Warden, COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 15 Respondent. APPEALABILITY 16 17 Stepfon Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on his Second Amended Petition for 18 Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U. S.C. § 2254, asserting errors related to the use of the 19 model jury instruction CalCrim 200. (See generally Doc. 11.) Respondent asserted the petition 20 fails on its merits and requested the Court deny the petition. (Doc. 20.) 21 The magistrate judge observed that “the California Supreme Court denied the State 22 Petition citing to In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770, 780 (1998), and In re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756, 759 23 (1953).” (Doc. 21 at 2, citing Doc. 19-3 at 395.) The magistrate judge noted:

24 “Under the so-called ‘Dixon bar,’ a defendant procedurally defaults a claim raised for the first time on state collateral review if he could have raised it 25 earlier on direct appeal.” Johnson v. Lee, 578 U.S. 605, 606 (2016). Robbins provides that “[a] prisoner must seek habeas relief without ‘substantial 26 delay,’ as ‘measured from the time the petitioner or counsel knew, or reasonably should have known, of the information offered in support of the 27 claim and the legal basis for the claim.’” Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 312 (2011) (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[a] summary denial citing … 28 Robbins means that the petition is rejected as untimely.” Id. at 313. 1 (Doc. 21 at 4.) Because the state court rejected Petitioner’s claims as barred by Robbins and 2 Dixon—which are independent and adequate state procedural grounds—the magistrate judge 3 found “Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted.” (Id. at 5.) The magistrate judge also 4 determined Petitioner did not identify any reason to excuse the default. (Id.) Therefore, the 5 magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the petition with prejudice and deny a 6 certificate of appealability. (Id. at 5, 6.) 7 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 8 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 21 at 6.) The Court advised him that the “failure 9 to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on 10 appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did 11 not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 12 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 13 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings related to the procedural 14 bars of the petition are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the Court adopts 15 the recommendation that a certificate of appealability not issue. 16 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus does not have an absolute entitlement to 17 appeal a district court’s ruling, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El 18 v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). If the Court denies a petitioner’s petition, the Court 19 may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 20 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, 21 Petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 22 that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 23 were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 24 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). In the present case, Petitioner 25 did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the 26 issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the determination that 27 Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of 28 encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 1 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 30, 2024 (Doc. 21) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED. 5 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | Dated: _ January 25, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28