Washington v. Pfeiffer

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 31 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DENYING PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and ORDER DECLINING to Issue a Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/8/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRIS LAVALE WASHINGTON,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:18-cv-00368-DAD-SKO (HC)

Plaintiff,
v.
C. PFEIFFER, Warden, Kern Valley State
Prison,
Defendant.

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

17
18

Petitioner Chris Lavale Washington is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition

19

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 20, 2019, the magistrate judge

20

assigned to the case issued findings and recommendations recommending denial of the petition

21

for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 31.) Those findings and recommendation were served upon

22

all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from

23

the date of service of that order. On August 2, 2019, petitioner was granted an extension of thirty

24

(30) days to file objections (Doc. No. 33), but no objections have been filed, and the time in

25

which to do so has now passed.

26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

27

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

28

findings and recommendations are 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 state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no

3

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

4

allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 2253. If, as here, a court denies a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court may only issue a

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

12

In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find that the court’s

13

determination that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

14

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate

15

of appealability.

16

Accordingly:

17

1.

18

The findings and recommendations issued on June 20, 2019 (Doc. No. 31), are
adopted in full;

19

2.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 24) is denied with prejudice;

20

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case; and

21

4.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 8, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2