Lucio Justo Ramos Carrillo v. San Joaquin County Sheriff

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUCIO JUSTO RAMOS CARRILLO, No. 2:25-cv-01927-DC-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF, (Doc. No. 10) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Lucio Justo Ramos Carrillo, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 10, 2025, Petitioner filed a document styled “Habeas Corpus File Petition.” (Doc. 21 No. 1.) Five days later, the magistrate judge screened the initial filing and found that the 22 document was insufficient to constitute a habeas corpus petition. (Doc. No. 3.) The magistrate 23 judge disregarded Petitioner’s July 10, 2025 document and provided Petitioner leave to file a 24 habeas petition that complied with the requirements of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 25 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. (Id. at 2.) 26 On July 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 5.) On 27 September 5, 2025, the magistrate judge issued an order dismissing the petition with leave to 28 amend because he failed to state any plausible ground for relief in the petition. (Doc. No. 9.) The 1 magistrate judge provided Petitioner thirty (30) days from the date of the order to file an amended 2 petition and advised Petitioner failure to file an amended petition will result in a recommendation 3 that this action be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner did not file an amended petition. 4 On October 21, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 5 recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. 6 No. 10.) The findings and recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained notice to 7 Petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 8 fourteen (14) days.1 (Id. at 2.) Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and 9 recommendations, and the time to do so has passed. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 11 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 12 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 13 analysis. 14 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 15 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 16 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 17 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only 18 issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of 19 a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on 20 procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a 21 certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states 22 a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 23 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 24 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the 25

1 On November 3, 2025, the service copy of the findings and recommendations was returned to 26 the court marked as “Undeliverable, Attempted-Not Known.” (See Doc.) On December 2, 2025, 27 the Court updated Petitioner’s mailing address pursuant to a November 5, 2025 filing in Ramos Carrillo v. Unknown, No. 25-cv-02315-TLN-JDP. (Id.) The next day, the court re-served 28 Petitioner the findings and recommendations by mail. (Id.) 1 | court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. Thus, 2 | the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 3 Accordingly, 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed on October 21, 2025 (Doc. No. 10) are 5 ADOPTED in full; 6 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; 7 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 8 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. : 1 | Dated: _Mareh 19, 2026 _ RUC Dena Coggins 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28