(HC) Segura v. Lizarraga
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JACOB JUAREZ SEGURA,
No. 1:20-cv-00990-DAD-SKO (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
JOE A. LIZARRAQA,
(Doc. No. 21)
Petitioner Jacob Juarez Segura is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter
was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
On April 28, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
recommending that the pending petition for habeas relief be denied on the merits. (Doc. No. 21.)
Those findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any
objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. (Id.) After having been
granted several extensions of time in which to file objections, petitioner filed objections to the
pending findings and recommendations on September 22, 2021. (Doc. No. 32.) Therein,
petitioner repeats the arguments addressed at length by the assigned magistrate judge. Indeed,
petitioner raised fourteen (14) claims in his petition and the findings and recommendations
thoroughly addressed each and every one, leading to a seventy-three (73) page order that the
undersigned has carefully reviewed for error. (Doc. No. 21.) For the same reasons discussed in
those pending findings and recommendations, petitioner’s objections are not persuasive.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s
objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the
record and proper analysis.
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
absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only
allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253. The court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate
whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.
880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find
the court’s determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that
petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate
The findings and recommendations issued on April 28, 2021 (Doc. No. 21) are
adopted in full;
The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied;
The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 19, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?