(HC) Ranteesi v. Borla

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02590
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIMON F. RANTEESI, No. 2:24-cv-02590-DAD-CKD (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 EDWARD BORLA, HABEAS PETITION AS AN UNAUTHORIZED SECOND OR 15 Respondent. SUCCESSIVE PETITION 16 (Doc. No. 5) 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an 19 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to 20 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 21, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge reviewed the pending petition and 22 issued findings and recommendations recommending that it be summarily dismissed as an 23 unauthorized second or successive petition. (Doc. No. 5.) Specifically, the magistrate judge 24 pointed out that petitioner has previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the 25 conviction and sentence challenged in this case that was denied on the merits. (Id. at 1) (citing 26 Ranteesi v. Grounds, No. 2:10-cv-00439-GEB-TJB (E.D. Cal.)). The magistrate judge also noted 27 that it did not appear that petitioner had obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of 28 Appeals to proceed with a second or successive petition as is required. (Id.) 1 The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that 2 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 3 3.) On November 1, 2024, the court received petitioner’s timely objections to the pending 4 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 6.) Respondent filed no response to petitioner’s 5 objections. 6 It is unclear what petitioner wishes the court to consider in his 31-page, difficult to 7 decipher objections. For instance, petitioner directs the court to his medical malpractice lawsuit, 8 which was dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 3) (citing Ranteesi v. Constance, et al., 9 No. 2:13-cv-01335-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.)). Petitioner also argues that the “one-year statute of 10 limitation” “under the (AEDPA)” “should not be applicable to [his] claims,” but the magistrate 11 judge’s pending findings and recommendations do not address the applicable statute of 12 limitations and the recommendation that the pending petition be summarily dismissed as second 13 or successive is not based on timeliness grounds. (Id. at 4.) Nowhere in his objections does 14 petitioner present any argument regarding his previously filed federal habeas petition that the 15 magistrate judge identified in which he challenged the same underlying state court conviction, but 16 he does admit that “the Ninth Circuit refused to grant [him] leave to file a second or successive 17 petition.” (Id. at 9.) 18 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 19 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 20 objections, the court concludes that the pending findings and recommendations are supported by 21 the record and proper analysis and that petitioner’s objections do not provide a basis upon which 22 to reject them. 23 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 24 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 25 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 26 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 27 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 28 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 1 | relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 2 | should issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner shows that “jurists of reason would find 3 | it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that 4 | jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 5 } ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that 6 | reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be 7 | dismissed to be debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of 8 || appealability. 9 Accordingly, 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 21, 2024 (Doc. No. 5) are 11 ADOPTED in full; 12 a. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without 13 prejudice as an unauthorized second or successive petition; 14 2. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 15 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 'T | Dated: _ April 1, 2025 □□□ A. 2, ye 18 DALE A. DROZD 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28