(HC) Mendoza v. Pallares

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REBECCA LEE MENDOZA, No. 2:20-cv-01638-DC-AC (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 MICHAEL PALLARES, FEDERAL HABEAS PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 15) 16 17 Petitioner Rebecca Lee Mendoza is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a 18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 7, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief (Doc. No. 1) be denied on the 22 merits. (Doc. No. 15.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 23 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the 24 date of service. (Id. at 16.) To date, no objections have been filed and the time in which to do so 25 has now passed. Petitioner has not otherwise communicated with the court in this action. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 27 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 28 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 2 | acertificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 3 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 4 | under certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 5 | (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 6 | court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 7 | petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 8 | Cir. 1997). If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only 9 | issue a certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 10 | denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the 11 | petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 12 || that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 13 || were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 14 | 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). Petitioner has not made such 15 | ashowing. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 7, 2024 (Doc. No. 15) are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 20 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 21 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 24 | Dated: November 12, 2024 □□□ Os Dena Coggins 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28