(HC) Quintero v. Campbell

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOEL QUINTERO, Case No. 1:23-cv-0174 JLT SAB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 T. CAMPBELL, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF 15 Respondent. APPEALABILITY (Doc. 24) 16 17 Joel Quintero is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting two claims for relief: (1) prosecutorial 19 misconduct and (2) sufficiency of the evidence. (See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge 20 found Petitioner was “not entitled to habeas relief” on the claims presented, because the state 21 court’s denial of Petitioner’s claims “was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, 22 clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of fact.” (Doc. 23 24 at 14, 17.) In addition, the magistrate judge found the state’s “decision was not so lacking in 24 justification that there was an error well understood and.” (Id., internal quotation marks, citation 25 omitted.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 26 denied. (Id. at 17.) 27 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 28 any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 24 at 17.) The Court advised him that the “failure 1 to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 2 order.” (Id. at 18, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner 3 did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 5 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 6 are supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Having found Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court must determine whether 8 a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 9 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 10 allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 11 § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 12 appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 13 petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 14 to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 15 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While Petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 16 demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 17 his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. In the present case, reasonable jurists would not find the 18 determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be 19 allowed to proceed further. Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial 20 of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 22 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 2, 2024 (Doc. 24) are 23 ADOPTED in full. 24 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 25 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4| Dated: _ August 21, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28