(HC) Ward v. Peery

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02220
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH VINCENT WARD, No. 2:21-cv-02220-DAD-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A 14 SUZANNE M. PEERY, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 1, 39, 41, 42) 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 19, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief be denied on the merits. (Doc. 22 No. 39). Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that the state appellate court’s 23 determination that the evidence presented at petitioner’s competency trial was sufficient to 24 support the jury’s finding that he was competent to stand trial1 was not contrary to or an 25

1 Under California Penal Code § 1369 the determination of a criminal defendant’s mental 26 competence, once raised, proceeds in a designated order including: “If counsel for the defendant 27 waives the right to a jury trial and the prosecution consents, . . ., the hearing shall be heard by the court. Otherwise, a determination of the defendant’s competency to stand trial shall be decided 28 by a jury. The verdict of the jury shall be unanimous.” Cal. Pen. Code § 1369 (c)(4). 1 unreasonable application of any United States Supreme Court precedent and was not based upon 2 an unreasonable determination of the facts. (Id. at 13–18.) 3 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 4 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 5 18.) On April 1, 2024, the court received petitioner’s timely objections to the pending findings 6 and recommendations. (Doc. No. 41.) On August 5, 2024, petitioner filed a document styled as a 7 request for the court to conclude the issue presented. (Doc. No. 42.) 8 In his somewhat difficult to decipher objections petitioner argues that he “is not 9 delusional” and complains of the actions of his trial and appellate counsel in his state court 10 proceedings, suggesting that the allegations set forth in the pending petition for federal habeas 11 relief are those of his prior counsel and not his own. (Doc. No. 41 at 2.) Instead, petitioner 12 appears to suggest that he is factually innocent of the murder for which he was convicted as he 13 has asserted in a related federal habeas action now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of 14 Appeals (see 2:23cv2175 DAD) and that law enforcement investigators and his own counsel 15 failed to properly investigate the crime. (Id. at 2–4.) In any event, none of these objections 16 provide any basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. Those 17 findings and recommendations will therefore be adopted and the pending application for federal 18 habeas relief will be denied. 19 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court has 20 considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. See Local Rule 191(j). A habeas 21 petitioner may appeal only those claims for which a certificate of appealability is granted. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Rios v. Garcia, 390 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004); see 23 also Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 24 (2000). 25 A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial 26 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either 27 issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or state the 28 reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 1 Where constitutional claims are denied on the merits, the petitioner must show that 2 || reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable 3 | or wrong. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. In the present case, the court concludes that reasonable 4 | jurists would not find this court’s denial of federal habeas relief on petitioner’s claims to be 5 | debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the court will decline 6 | to issue a certificate of appealability. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 8 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 9 | objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 10 | record and by proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 39) are ADOPTED in full; 13 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED; 14 3. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2253; 16 4. Petitioner’s request to conclude the proceeding (Doc. No. 42.) is DENIED AS MOOT 17 in light of this order; and 18 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ February 18, 2025 Da A. 2, axel 21 DALE A. DROZD 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28