(HC) Segura v. Lizarraga

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/19/2021. Certificate of Appealability is Declined. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JACOB JUAREZ SEGURA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00990-DAD-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

JOE A. LIZARRAQA,
(Doc. No. 21)

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner Jacob Juarez Segura is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter

19

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

20

Rule 302.

21

On April 28, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

22

recommending that the pending petition for habeas relief be denied on the merits. (Doc. No. 21.)

23

Those findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any

24

objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. (Id.) After having been

25

granted several extensions of time in which to file objections, petitioner filed objections to the

26

pending findings and recommendations on September 22, 2021. (Doc. No. 32.) Therein,

27

petitioner repeats the arguments addressed at length by the assigned magistrate judge. Indeed,

28

petitioner raised fourteen (14) claims in his petition and the findings and recommendations
1

1

thoroughly addressed each and every one, leading to a seventy-three (73) page order that the

2

undersigned has carefully reviewed for error. (Doc. No. 21.) For the same reasons discussed in

3

those pending findings and recommendations, petitioner’s objections are not persuasive.

4

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

5

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s

6

objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the

7

record and proper analysis.

8
9

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether
a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no

10

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

11

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

12

§ 2253. The court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate

13

whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different

14

manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

15

further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.

16

880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find

17

the court’s determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that

18

petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate

19

of appealability.

20

Accordingly,

21

1.

22

The findings and recommendations issued on April 28, 2021 (Doc. No. 21) are
adopted in full;

23

2.

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

24

3.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

25

4.

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

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 19, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2