Ramirez v. Pfeiffer

Filing 28

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/10/2020 ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations in full. The 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The Court DECLINES to issue certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD RAMIREZ,

12

No. 2:17-cv-00619-TLN-KJN

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

ORDER

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner Richard Ramirez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this

17
18

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to

19

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 12, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

20
21

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 21.) On

23

September 25, 2019, Petitioner filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations.1 (ECF

24

No. 24.) On November 5, 2019, Respondent Christian Pfeiffer (“Respondent”) filed a Reply to

25

Petitioner’s Objections to the Findings and Recommendations.2 (ECF No. 27.)

26

1

27
28

Petitioner requested, and was granted, an extension of time to file objections to the
Findings and Recommendations. (ECF Nos. 22–23.)
2
Respondent also requested, and was granted, an extension of time to file a reply to
Petitioner’s objections. (ECF Nos. 25–26.)
1

1

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

2

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

3

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

4

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court

5

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United

6

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

7

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

8
9
10

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court
finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate
judge’s analysis.

11

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has

12

considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this

13

decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

14

Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28

15

U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

16

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of

17

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why

18

such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on

19

procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that

20

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

21

ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

22

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.

23

2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)).
For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations (ECF

24
25

No. 21), the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case.

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 12, 2019 (ECF No. 21), are adopted

28

in full;
2

1

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; and

2

3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.

3
4
5

§ 2253.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2020

6
7
8

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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