(HC) Ranteesi v. Borla

Opinion

SIMON F. RANTEESI, No. 2:24-cv-02590-DAD-CKD (HC) Petitioner, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING UNAUTHORIZED SECOND OR Respondent. SUCCESSIVE PETITION (Doc. No. 5) Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an application 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 October 21, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge reviewed the pending petition and issued findings and recommendations recommending that it be summarily dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition. (Doc. No. 5.) Specifically, the magistrate judge pointed out that petitioner has previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case that was denied on the merits. (Id. at 1) (citing Ranteesi v. Grounds, No. 2:10-cv-00439-GEB-TJB (E.D. Cal.)). The magistrate judge also noted that it did not appear that petitioner had obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed with a second or successive petition as is required. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 3.) On November 1, 2024, the court received petitioner’s timely objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 6.) Respondent filed no response to petitioner’s objections. It is unclear what petitioner wishes the court to consider in his 31-page, difficult to decipher objections. For instance, petitioner directs the court to his medical malpractice lawsuit, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 3) (citing Ranteesi v. Constance, et al., No. 2:13-cv-01335-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.)). Petitioner also argues that the “one-year statute of limitation” “under the (AEDPA)” “should not be applicable to [his] claims,” but the magistrate judge’s pending findings and recommendations do not address the applicable statute of limitations and the recommendation that the pending petition be summarily dismissed as second or successive is not based on timeliness grounds. (Id. at 4.) Nowhere in his objections does petitioner present any argument regarding his previously filed federal habeas petition that the magistrate judge identified in which he challenged the same underlying state court conviction, but he does admit that “the Ninth Circuit refused to grant [him] leave to file a second or successive petition.” (Id. at 9.) 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 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis and that petitioner’s objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject them. Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s 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). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner shows that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural } ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 21, 2024 (Doc. No. 5) are ADOPTED in full; a. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as an unauthorized second or successive petition; 2. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 'T | Dated: _ April 1, 2025 □□□ A. 2, ye UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE