(HC) Meza v. Bonwell

Opinion

REINA MARIE MEZA, No. 1:19-cv-00919-DAD-SKO (HC) Petitioner, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MICHELLE BONWELL, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Respondent. (Doc. No. 34)

Petitioner Reina Marie Meza is a state parolee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief (Doc. No. 1) be denied on the merits. (Doc. No. 34.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that petitioner’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction in state court for making a false police report was not supported by the record. (Id. at 9.) On July 20, 2020, petitioner filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations.1 (Doc. No. 35.) 1 Petitioner also filed objections on July 22, 2020. (See Doc. No. 36.) The second set of objections appear to be an exact copy of the first. (Compare Doc. No. 36, with Doc. No. 35.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. In her objections, petitioner continues to argue that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. (See generally Doc. No. 35.) She does not, however, meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s conclusion that “[b]ased on the totality of the evidence, a rational jurist could have disbelieved Petitioner’s testimony, and accepted the testimony of law enforcement that Petitioner was making false criminal reports [against her ex-husband] to obtain custody of [her] child.” (Doc. No. 34 at 9); see also Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 781 (1990) (“[W]here a federal habeas corpus claimant alleges that his state conviction is unsupported by the evidence, federal courts must determine whether . . ., after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Having found that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief, the court now turns to whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of her petition, as an appeal is only allowed under certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335- 336 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made 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, ///// wOAOe ff UVES EARLE SINAN MVOC OE PC veer TOY VMI

484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). Here, petitioner has not made sucha showing. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 7, 2020 (Doc. No. 34) are adopted in full; 2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. a Dated: _ September 1, 2020 Ya AL ae UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE