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)

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