(HC)Godfrey v. Warden PBSP

Filing 47

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing Clerk of Court to close case and declining to issue a Certificate of Appealability 1 , 44 signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/2/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA MICHAEL GODFREY,
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

WARDEN PBSP,

15

Respondent.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01197-JLT-HBK (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING
CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND
DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
(Docs. 1, 44.)

Joshua Michael Godfrey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge issued Findings and

19

Recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and that the

20

court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 44 at 18.) The Court notified the parties that

21

any objections were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 18-19.) To date, the

22

Petitioner has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has passed.

23

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case.

24

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are

25

supported by the record and proper analysis.

26

A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather an

27

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

28

see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only with a
1

1

certificate of appealability). A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has

2

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

3

certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). While the

4

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than

5

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

6

The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s rejection of Petitioner’s

7

claims is debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed

8

further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

9

Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

10

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

11

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 29, 2022 (Doc. 44) are ADOPTED
in full.

12
13

2.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

14

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

15

4.

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 2, 2022

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2