(HC) Murillo v. CDCR Administration

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIXTO CRUZ MURILLO, No. 1:25-cv-00495-KES-EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 CDCR ADMINISTRATION, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF 15 Respondent. APPEALABILITY 16 Doc. 7 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 10, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 that recommended dismissing the petition because it is an unauthorized successive petition and it 23 fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. Doc. 7. On June 20, 2025, petitioner filed timely 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 8. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 27 Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 28 analysis. Petitioner’s objections repeat contentions that were correctly addressed by the findings 1 | and recommendations. 2 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 3 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 4 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 5 | allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 6 | U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without 7 | reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability 8 | “afjurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 9 | of aconstitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 10 || was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a 11 | plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 12 | reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 13 | that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Jd. 14 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 15 | determination that there is a plain procedural bar present debatable or wrong. Therefore, the Court 16 | declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly: 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 10, 2025, Doc. 7, are ADOPTED in 19 full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 22 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 24 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 26 Dated: _ August 26, 2025 4h 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE