Casillas v. Secretary of Corrections

Filing 74

ORDER ADOPTING 69 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED With Prejudice ; ORDERED that the Court DECLINES to Issue a Certificate of Appealability, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/4/2020. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OMAR CASILLAS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE
CASE

16

18

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 69)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS

v.

15

17

No. 1:17-cv-00511-LJO-SKO (HC)

SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

19
20

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of

21

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge

22

assigned to the case issued Findings and Recommendation to deny the petition on its merits.

23

(Doc. No. 69.) This Findings and Recommendation was served upon all parties and contained

24

notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that

25

order. On October 2, 2019, Petitioner requested an extension of time. (Doc. 70.) On October 8,

26

2019, the Court granted a thirty-day extension of time. (Doc. 71.) On November 12, 2019,

27

Petitioner requested a second extension of time. (Doc. 72.) On November 18, 2019, the Court

28

granted Petitioner an additional thirty days to file objections. Over thirty days have now passed,
1

1
2

and Petitioner has not filed any objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a

3

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that

4

the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

5

analysis.

6

In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner

7

seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of

8

his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

9

U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of

10

appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

11

(a)
In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district
judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit
in which the proceeding is held.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

(b)
There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the
validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person
charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's
detention pending removal proceedings.
(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may
not be taken to the court of appeals from—
(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention
complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or
(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue
or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of

24

appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

25

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that

26

“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

27

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve

28

encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting
2

1
2

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).
In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

3

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of

4

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not

5

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to

6

proceed further. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

7

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

8

1.

9

The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 3, 2019 (Doc. No. 69), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

10

2.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE;

11

3.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file; and,

12

4.

The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

13

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

January 4, 2020

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3