(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)

Download PDF
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

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?