(HC) Spencer-Hayes v. Spearman

Opinion

JARROD ERNEST SPENCER-HAYES, No. 1:20-cv-00734-NONE-JLT (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT M. SPEARMAN, TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND THEN Respondent. ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE (Doc. Nos. 1, 23) Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his pending petition, petitioner presents five claims for federal habeas relief challenging testimony and other evidence admitted at his trial concerning his gang affiliation and that affiliation’s link to the charges brought against him, as well as the legal viability of a gang special circumstance finding in his case. (See Doc. No. 1.) On October 30, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be denied on its merits. (Doc. No. 23.) The findings and recommendations found that the the state court’s conclusions were reasonable and applied the correct legal standards. (See id.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of that order. To date, no party has filed objections. 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, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 1. The findings and recommendations, filed October 30, 2020 (Doc. No. 23), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; ///// ///// ///// 3. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to close this case; and, 4. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. a " Li. wh F Dated: _ March 29, 2021 Aa oe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE