(HC) Walker v. Cates

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS WALKER Case No. 1:21-cv-01412 JLT CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING THE 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 BRIAN CATES, Warden COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 15 Respondent. APPEALABILITY

16 (Doc. 22)

17 Douglas Walker is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with his petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting “there was insufficient evidence to prove all 19 elements of the offense as charged.”1 (Doc. 1 at 4.) The magistrate judge found Petitioner 20 presented only a conclusory argument asserting that “there was insufficient produced to establish 21 that the elements of inflicting a traumatic injury on a spouse, as charged in count one, in violation 22 of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.” (Doc. 22 at 12, quoting Doc. 1 at 4 23 [cleaned up].) Further, the magistrate “the state court’s rejection of Petitioner’s sufficiency of the 24 evidence claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established 25 Supreme Court precedent, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” (Id. at 26 13; see also id. at 12-13.) Finally, the magistrate judge found Petitioner did not make a 27 1 Petitioner proceeds only on ground two raised in the petition, because the Court dismissed grounds one, three, and 1 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (Id. at 14.) The magistrate judge 2 recommended the Court deny the petition and deny a certificate of appealability. (Id.) 3 Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 23.) 4 Petitioner asserts, “As jurists of reason could find debatable the magistrate judge’s findings 5 regarding the claims presented, this Court should reject the recommendations and order the relief 6 prayed for be granted.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner contends the Court should issue a certificate of 7 appealability, citing Miller-El v. Cockrell, 527 U.S. 322 (2003). (Id. at 2-3.) However, Petitioner 8 does not object to—or even acknowledge—the specific findings of the magistrate judge related to 9 the merits of the claim or the sufficiency of the evidence. (See generally Doc. 23 at 1-3.) 10 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 11 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 12 are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the Court agrees with the finding of 13 the magistrate judge that a certificate of appealability should not be issued. 14 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 15 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 16 Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 335–36; 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If the Court denies a petition on the merits, it 17 may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 18 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, 19 Petitioner must establish “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) 20 the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 21 ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 22 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). Reasonable jurists would not find 23 the Court’s determinations— that Petitioner’s claim regarding insufficiency of the evidence 24 lacked merit and the petition should be denied—were debateable or wrong, or that Petitioner 25 should be allowed to proceed further. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 26 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 13, 2025 (Doc. 22) are 27 ADOPTED in full. 1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 2 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: _ April 8, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28