Bonilla v. On Habeas Corpus

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ; ORDER DECLINING to Issue Certificate of Appealability; New Case No. 1:18-cv-00687 AWI-JDP (HC), signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/9/2020. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NEFTALI BONILLA, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. ON HABEAS CORPUS, Respondent. No. 1:18-cv-00687-NONE-JDP ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Doc. No. 16) 16 17 Petitioner Neftali Bonilla, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 16.) The 22 findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that objections 23 were due within thirty (30) days. (Id.) On April 16, 2020, petitioner filed a traverse in response 24 to the findings and recommendations, which the court will construe as objections to the findings 25 and recommendations. (Doc. No. 17.) 26 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 28 1 1 including the petitioner’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations 2 are supported by the record and proper analysis. 3 Petitioner objects to the pending findings and recommendations on the grounds that: 4 (1) his claims are not procedurally barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); (2) his petition should 5 not be denied on the merits under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2); (3) his claims are exhausted; (4) his 6 claims should not be “barred for lack of proper presentation in the state courts”; (5) petitioner 7 “denies his custody is legal, or that his illegal custody would not have been ‘apparent to all 8 reasonable jurists’”; and (6) petitioner “denies that there is not [sic] lawful basis to issue the writ 9 under the statutorily established system of review.” (Doc. No. 17 at 2–3.) 10 As to petitioner’s first and fourth objections, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s 11 finding that plaintiff’s Miranda warning claim is procedurally barred. Petitioner does not assert 12 any additional arguments in his objections that would warrant the undersigned to find otherwise. 13 Therefore, petitioner’s first objection does not call into question the conclusion reached in the 14 pending findings and recommendations. Addressing petitioner’s second and sixth objections, petitioner does not provide any 15 16 additional bases for this court to consider that differ or otherwise supplement his 28 U.S.C. § 17 2254 petition. To the extent petitioner objects on the grounds that the trial court violated 18 petitioner’s due process rights by admitting certain text messages into evidence under California 19 Evidence Code § 352, this court agrees with the pending findings and recommendations that 20 federal habeas relief is not available for alleged violations of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 21 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (holding state court’s admission of evidence pursuant to California law “is 22 no part of a federal court’s habeas review of a state conviction”). Accordingly, these objections 23 are without merit. Petitioner’s third objection is irrelevant because the pending findings and 24 recommendations do not address exhaustion. 25 26 27 28 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether a certificate of appealability should issue.1 A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no The court construes petitioner’s fifth objection as addressing the magistrate judge’s denial of a certificate of appealability. (See Doc. No. 16 at 10.) 2 1 1 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 2 under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 3 (2003). 4 If a court dismisses a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only issue a 5 certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 6 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 7 establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 8 should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 9 deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 10 11 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 12 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 13 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 14 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 15 proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 16) are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 20 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 21 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 22 23 24 25 purposes of closure and to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 9, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 3

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?