(HC) Sanchez v. Pfeiffer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY A. SANCHEZ, No. 1:23-cv-1767-KES-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND 15 Respondent. DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (Docs. 16, 20) 17

18 19 Petitioner Anthony A. Sanchez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 20 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On May 16, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 that recommended granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. Doc. 20. 24 The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 25 objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and 26 recommendations. Id. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has 27 passed. 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court has conducted a de 1 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court concludes that the 2 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 3 analysis. 4 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 5 a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 6 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed 7 only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 8 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the 9 underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of 10 reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 11 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 12 correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain 13 procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 14 reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 15 that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. 16 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 17 determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable, wrong, or deserving of 18 encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of 19 appealability. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 16, 2024, Doc. 20, are ADOPTED 3 in full; 4 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 16, is GRANTED; 5 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as untimely; 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 7 5. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 8 9 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ August 8, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28