Quezada v. Muniz

Filing 50

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/25/2023 ADOPTING in FULL 43 Findings and Recommendations. The petition for writ of habeas corpus 4 is DENIED. The court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GERMAN YOVANI QUEZADA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

No. 2:17-cv-00243-DAD-AC (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PETITION FOR HABEAS RELIEF ON THE
MERITS

W.L. MUNOZ, Warden,
(Doc. No. 43)

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

17
18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenges his 2012 state court conviction for attempted

19

murder and related offenses. (Doc. No. 42.) The matter was referred to a United States

20

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

21

On March 31, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

22

recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief be denied on the merits. (Doc.

23

No. 43.) The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner with notice that any

24

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of their service. After

25

receiving extensions of time to file objections (Doc. Nos. 46, 48), petitioner’s objections to the

26

pending findings and recommendations were timely filed on July 10, 2023. (Doc. No. 49.)

27

Respondent has not filed any reply to petitioner’s objections.

28

/////
1

1

Petitioner’s objections fail to provide any basis upon which to question the analysis set

2

forth in the findings and recommendations which thoroughly and appropriately addressed each of

3

petitioner’s claims on the merits. Indeed, petitioner’s lengthy objections only occasionally even

4

mention the findings and recommendation and certainly do not address the magistrate judge’s

5

analysis of petitioner’s claims. (See Doc. No. 49 at 1–37.) Rather, petitioner’s objections appear

6

to be a repeat, often verbatim, of arguments he previously presented in support of his petition for

7

federal habeas relief. (See Doc. Nos. 27, 42.)

8
9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s

10

objections, the undersigned concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations

11

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Therefore, the findings and recommendations

12

will be adopted and petitioner’s request for federal habeas relief will be denied on the merits of

13

his presented claims.

14

In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking

15

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

16

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

17

322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court

18

may only issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district

19

court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the

20

issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S.

21

at 327; see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required

22

to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of

23

frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. In the

24

present case, the court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination

25

that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of

26

encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of

27

the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court will decline to issue a certificate of

28

appealability.
2

1

Accordingly:

2

1.

3

The findings and recommendations issued on March 31, 2023 (Doc. No. 43) are
adopted in full;

4

2.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. Nos. 4, 42) is denied;

5

3.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability (28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)); and

6

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

August 25, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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