(HC)Ponce v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TONY E. PONCE, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01727-KES-HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION 13 v. ) FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 12, 30) 16 ) 17 Petitioner Tony E. Ponce is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 18 a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docs. 1, 2, 12. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On February 24, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as without 23 merit. Doc. 30. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained 24 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. 25 Petitioner has not filed objections, and the deadline to do so has expired. 26 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of this case. 27 Having carefully reviewed the relevant filings, the Court concludes the findings and 28 1 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal; rather, 3 | an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 4 | (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a 5 | certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 6 | resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 7 || presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; 8 | Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the 9 | merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the 10 | existence of mere good faith on his .. . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 11 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 12 | petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 13 || encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 14 | the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 15 | appealability. 16 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 24, 2025, Doc. 30, are 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 12, is DENIED. 20 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 22 23 94 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 25 Dated: _ March 27, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28