(HC) Sipes v. Corcoran California State Prison

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY TODD SIPES, No. 1:24-cv-00622-JLT-EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 CORCORAN CALIFORNIA STATE TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO PRISON, ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. 10) 16

17 18 Jeffrey Todd Sipes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 8, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 10.) On November 20 23 and 21, 2024, the Court received handwritten pages of “facts” and various documents, which the 24 Court construes as objections to the findings and recommendations. (Docs. 11, 13.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 27 objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and 28 proper analysis. 1 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 2 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 3 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 4 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 5 | § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 6 | appealability jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 7 | petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 8 || to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 9 | U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 10 | demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 11 | his... part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 12 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 13 | determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be 14 | allowed to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial 15 | of aconstitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 8, 2024 (Doc. 10) are 18 ADOPTED IN FULL. 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 21 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | Dated: _ December 22, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28