(HC) Calderon v. Board of Parole Hearings of CA

Filing 9

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/4/2025 ADOPTING 6 Findings and Recommendations in full and DISMISSING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk OML)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN CARLOS CALDERON,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:23-cv-02554-DAD-CKD (PC)

Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS,
CALIFORNIA,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARILY
DISMISSING PETITION
(Doc. Nos. 1, 6)

Respondent.

17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an application

18

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

19

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

20

On May 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge reviewed the pending petition and issued

21

findings and recommendations recommending that it be summarily dismissed because it failed to

22

state any cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 6.) Specifically, the magistrate

23

judge concluded that petitioner’s claims all focused on his challenges to state parole denials or the

24

representation he received in connection with his state parole hearings and failed to state any

25

arguable claim for relief under § 2254. (Id. at 1–2.)

26

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

27

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at

28

3.) Petitioner filed two documents with the court on June 10, 2024 (Doc. Nos. 7 & 8), which the
1

1

court construes as his objections to the findings and recommendations. In his objections

2

petitioner complains generally of the conditions of his confinement in state prison and his lack of

3

legal knowledge or assistance in that regard. (Id.) Those objections, however, provide no basis

4

upon which to question the analysis set forth in the pending findings and recommendations.

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

6

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

7

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported

8

by the record and by proper analysis.

9

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

10

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

11

and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–

12

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

13

issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s

14

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

15

presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327;

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

appealability.

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 6) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

26

2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is summarily

27

DISMISSED;

28

/////
2

1

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

2

§ 2253; and

3

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated:

March 4, 2025
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3