(HC) Maine v. Ndoh

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 29 Findings and Recommendations, DENYING Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DIRECTING Clerk of Court to CLOSE CASE, and DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/25/2024. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH HASKELL MAINE,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15
16
17

v.
LUIS MARTINEZ,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-0303 JLT HBK (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING SECOND
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING
TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
(Docs. 25, 29)

Joseph Haskell Maine is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with his Second Amended

18

Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting juror bias. (Doc. 25.)

19

Petitioner contends: “Juror No. 3669228 admitted to a bias opinion against the defendant and is a

20

family member of the victim family.” (Id. at 4.)

21

The magistrate judge reviewed the state court decisions and observed that “the trial court

22

promptly convened a hearing after Juror No. 3669228 made known to the trial court that he saw

23

someone familiar in the audience.” (Doc. 29 at 14.) The magistrate judge observed the trial court

24

questioned the juror, and “neither the trial court nor defense counsel viewed Juror No. 3669228 as

25

biased against Petitioner or favorable to the prosecution.” (Id.) Further, the magistrate judge

26

noted Petitioner did not “submit any evidence or even argument that casts doubt on trial court’s

27

apparent credibility determination.” (Id.) The magistrate judge found “the Superior Court

28

reasonably concluded that Juror No. 3669228 showed no actual or implied bias that resulted in a
1

1

Petitioner being denied due process during his trial.” (Id. at 15.) In addition, the magistrate judge

2

determined that “the state court’s rejection of Petitioner’s juror bias claim was not contrary to, or

3

an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, nor was it based on

4

an unreasonable determination of the facts.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended

5

the petition be denied. (Id.)

6

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that

7

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 29 at 16.) The Court advised him that the “failure

8

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id.,

9

citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file

10
11

objections, and the time to do so has passed.
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this

12

case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and

13

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

14

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

15

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

16

(2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only

17

issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s

18

resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues

19

presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327;

20

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the

21

merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the

22

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

23

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the petition should be

24

denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of encouragement to

25

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

26

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

27

upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

28

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 4, 2024 (Doc. 29), are
2

1

ADOPTED in full.

2

2.

The Second Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 25) is DENIED.

3

3.

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

4

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 25, 2024

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3