(HC) Wilson v. Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JOSEPH ALLEN WILSON, No. 1:25-cv-00648 JLT EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 UNKNOWN, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. 8) 16 17 Joseph Allen Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 10, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as an unauthorized 22 successive petition. (Doc. 8.) On July 21, 2025, Petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. 9.) 23 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 24 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court holds 25 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. As the 26 magistrate judge explained, to the extent Petitioner is raising new grounds not previously 27 included in a prior petition, it is the Ninth Circuit, not this Court, that must determine if one of the 28 exceptions to the bar against second or successive petitions applies. (See Doc. 8 at 2.) 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 vy. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 6 | the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists 7 | of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 8 | constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 9 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain 10 | procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 11 | reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 12 | that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. 13 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 14 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should 15 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 | Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued July 10, 2025 (Doc. 8) are ADOPTED IN 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 21 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 24 | Dated: _ July 31, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28