Booker v. Superior Court of the State of California, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/10/2022 ADOPTING 29 The Findings and Recommendations in full; Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus 1 , is DENIED; The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close tis file. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY CHEVER BOOKER,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-01672-TLN-DMC

v.

ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Respondents.

16
17
18

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas

19

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

20

pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

21

On November 10, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein

22

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections

23

within the time specified therein. (ECF No. 29.) No objections to the findings and

24

recommendations have been filed.
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

25
26

supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

27

///

28

///
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). For the reasons

14

set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the Court finds that issuance of

15

a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

18

The findings and recommendations filed November 10, 2021, (ECF No. 29), are

adopted in full;

19

2.

Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (ECF No. 1), is denied;

20

3.

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

21

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close tis file.

22

DATED: January 10, 2022

23
24
25
26

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

27
28
2