(HC)Ramirez v. The People of the State of California

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Directing Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment and Close Case, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/28/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISAIAH B. RAMIREZ,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

16

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-00295-AWI-HBK (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND
CLOSE CASE
(Doc. Nos. 1, 8)

17
18

Petitioner Isaiah B. Ramirez, while a pretrial detainee, initiated this action by filing a pro

19

se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. No. 1. On November

20

21, 2022, the magistrate judge assigned to the case issued findings and recommendations to

21

dismiss the petition for failure to prosecute. Doc. No. 10. These findings and recommendations

22

were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within

23

fourteen days from the date of service of that order. As of the date of this order Petitioner has not

24

filed objections, and the deadline for doing so has expired.

25

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

26

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

27

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper

28

analysis.
1

1

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

2

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

3

his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

4

U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of

5

appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

6
7
8

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a
district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of
appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

10

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the
validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial
a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the
validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

11

(c)

9

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an
appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—
(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the
detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State
court; or
(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.
(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which
specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of

21

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

22

§ 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).

27
28

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of
2

1

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not

2

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

3

proceed further. Thus, the Court will decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

4

ORDER

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

7

The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 10) issued on November 21, 2022,
are ADOPTED in full;

8

2.

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

9

3.

The Clerk of Court shall ENTER judgment and CLOSE the file; and

10

4.

The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 28, 2023
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3