Griffin v. Martinez

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING 44 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/29/2021. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT LEE GRIFFIN,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.
JOEL D. MARTINEZ,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS

Respondent.
(Doc. No. 44)

16
17

No. 1:17-cv-01137-DAD-HBK (HC)

Petitioner Robert Lee Griffin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ

18

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On September 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

21

recommendations recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief (Doc. No. 1)

22

be denied on the merits. (Doc. No. 44.) Those findings and recommendations were served on all

23

parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days

24

from the date of service. (Id. at 29–30.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to

25

do so has now passed.

26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

27

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

28

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
1

1

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether

2

a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no

3

absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed

4

under certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336

5

(2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district

6

court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a

7

petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th

8

Cir. 1997). If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only

9

issue a certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

10

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the

11

petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree

12

that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented

13

were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

14

484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). Petitioner has not made such

15

a showing. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

16

Accordingly,

17

1.

18

The findings and recommendations issued on September 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 44) are
adopted in full;

19

2.

This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied;

20

3.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

21

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 29, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2