(HC) Trotter v. Superior Court of California, Calaveras County
Filing
13
ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; ORDERED that the Court DECLINES to Issue a Certificate of Appealability, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/4/2021. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)
Case 1:21-cv-00570-DAD-HBK Document 13 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHRISTOPHER JOHN TROTTER,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
CALAVERAS COUNTY,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00570-DAD-HBK
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
PETITION
(Doc. No. 11)
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner Christopher John Trotter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18
19
pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was
20
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
21
302.
On June 22, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
22
23
recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust his claim for relief by
24
presenting them to the highest state court. (Doc. No. 11.) The pending findings and
25
recommendations were served on petitioner at his address of record and contained notice that any
26
objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of service. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner
27
filed timely objections on June 30, 2021. (Doc. No. 12.)
28
/////
1
Case 1:21-cv-00570-DAD-HBK Document 13 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 3
1
In his objections, petitioner asserts that he was advised by his appellate attorney to file a
2
petition for writ of habeas corpus following the conclusion of his state court appeal. (Id. at 1.)
3
Petitioner also reiterates his argument that he is being denied certain time credits to which he is
4
entitled. (Id.) Neither of these arguments address the fact that petitioner failed to exhaust his
5
claim because he did not seek review of his claim by the California Supreme Court, nor that
6
petitioner’s sole claim for relief is now procedurally barred because his petition for review was
7
due to be filed in the California Supreme Court no later than April 7, 2021. (See Doc. No. 11 at
8
2–3.) As such, petitioner’s objections are unpersuasive.
9
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
10
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s
11
objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the
12
record and by proper analysis.
13
Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to
14
whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas
15
corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal
16
is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28
17
U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without
18
reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability
19
“if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
20
of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
21
was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the
22
present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that
23
the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to
24
proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
2
Case 1:21-cv-00570-DAD-HBK Document 13 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 3
1
Accordingly:
2
1.
3
The findings and recommendations issued on June 22, 2021 (Doc. No. 11)
are adopted in full;
4
2.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed;
5
3.
The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
6
4.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 4, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?