Beltran v. On Habeas Corpus

Filing 17

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations Recommending Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denial of a Certificate of Appealability, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/14/16. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIME BELTRAN, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. WARREN L. MONTGOMERY,, Respondent. No. 1:15-cv-01858-DAD-SKO ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENIAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Doc. No. 16) 16 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 7, 2016, the assigned magistrate 20 judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the court deny the pending 21 petition, enter judgment for respondent, and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 22 No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice 23 that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. Neither party has filed objections. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 25 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court 26 concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record 27 and proper analysis. Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of evidence on which his underlying 28 conviction was based. However, as the findings and recommendations makes clear, adequate 1 1 evidence was presented at his trial to allow a rational trier of fact to find “the essential elements 2 of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Viriginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 3 Thus, denial of federal habeas relief is warranted. 4 Moreover, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 5 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 6 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 7 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). A certificate of appealability is required. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). When 8 a court denies a federal habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability if 9 the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 10 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists 11 could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 12 different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 13 further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 14 880, 893 (1983)). In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required 15 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 16 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 17 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 18 proceed further. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. The June 7, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) are adopted in full; 21 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 22 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 23 4. The court directs the clerk of court to enter judgment for respondent. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 14, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?