(HC) Thomas, Jr. v. Sutton

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED; ORDERED that the Court DECLINES to Issue a Certificate of Appealability, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/8/2021. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BOBBY THOMAS, JR.,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

15
16
17
18
19

SUTTON, Warden,

No. 1:20-cv-01409-NONE-JLT (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE
CASE
(Doc. Nos. 1, 9)

Respondent.
Petitioner Bobby Thomas, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a

20

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

21

challenges his denial of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings and alleges that the

22

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is failing to adequately protect him from

23

the coronavirus. (Id. at 5–7.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

24

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 302.

25

On October 19, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

26

recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable ground for

27

relief. (Doc. No. 9.) First, petitioner alleges his due process rights were violated but he was

28

given an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of reasons for why his parole was
1

1

denied. (Id. at 2.) Second, petitioner’s claim that he is not being adequately protected from the

2

coronavirus is not a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Id. at 2–3.) These findings and

3

recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to

4

be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. To date, no party has filed

5

objections.

6

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

7

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

8

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.

9

In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner

10

seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of

11

his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El

12

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003).

13

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of

14

appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

15

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that

16

“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

17

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve

18

encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting

19

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

20

In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial

21

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of

22

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not

23

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to

24

proceed further. Thus, the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

25

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

26

1.

27

ADOPTED in full;

28

2.

The findings and recommendations, filed October 19, 2020 (Doc. No. 9), are

The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED;
2

1

3.

The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and

2

4.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the

3

purpose of closing the case and then to close the case.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3