(HC) Tran v. Campbell

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUY TRONG TRAN, No. 1:24-cv-00074 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 5)

14 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT TAMMY CAMPBELL, Warden, OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING 15 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT Respondent. AND CLOSE CASE 16 ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 17 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 18 Huy Trong Tran is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 23, 2024, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 22 Recommendations to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cognizable federal claim. (Doc. 5.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any 24 objections were due within twenty-one days. (Doc. 5.) Petitioner sought and was granted three 25 extensions of time. (Docs. 7-12.) On April 15, 2024, he filed objections. (Doc. 13.) 26 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 27 case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court 28 concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Petitioner’s claims concerning his petition for resentencing in the state court center on the state 2 court’s application of state sentencing laws and are not cognizable on federal habeas review. 3 Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990). To the extent Petitioner may seek to challenge the 4 underlying conviction, he must bring a habeas petition in the sentencing court, which in this case 5 is the Orange County Superior Court. 6 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 7 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 8 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 9 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 10 appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

11 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 12 appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

13 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 14 trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 15 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 16 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

17 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 18 court; or

19 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

20 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 21 right.

22 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 23 24 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 25 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 26 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 27 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 28 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 1 | encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 2 | Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 3 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 4 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 5 | appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 6 | entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 7 | proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Based upon the 8 | foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on January 23, 2024, (Doc. 5), are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 13 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 14 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _ April 22, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28