(HC) Joven v. Cates

Opinion

ELOY JOVEN, No. 1:22-cv-00168-ADA-SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. (ECF Nos. 1, 21) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE BRIAN CATES, Warden, ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE Respondent. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Eloy Joven is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is represented in this action by Paul Stubb, Jr., Esq. 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 September 29, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations to deny the petition on its merits. (ECF No. 21.) Petitioner filed objections on November 26, 2022. (ECF No. 24.) Those objections contain generalized arguments about the constitutional dimensions of the state court’s alleged errors along with citations to three Supreme Court cases. Petitioner does not explain why his citations demonstrate error in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning or analysis. He simply invokes the protections of Due Process. Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade the Court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). Upon denying a petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 29, 2022, (ECF No. 21), 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: _ February 14, 2023 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE