(HC) Iseli v. Lynch

Filing 12

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/04/25 ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations in full; DISMISSING 1 Petition as successive and unauthorized without prejudice to its re-filing if authorization is first obtained from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as required; and FINDING AS MOOT 9 Request and 10 Motion for Extension of Time. Court DECLINES to issue COA. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk AJB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI,

Case No. 2:24-cv-00821-DAD-JDP (HC)

12

Petitioner,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
PETITION AS UNAUTHORIZED AND
SUCCESSIVE, AND DENYING
REMAINING MOTIONS

Respondent.

(Doc. Nos. 8, 9, 10)

13

v.

14

JEFF LYNCH,

15
16
17

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

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.

20

On August 30, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge reviewed the pending petition and

21

issued findings and recommendations recommending that it be summarily dismissed as an

22

unauthorized second or successive petition. (Doc. No. 8.) Specifically, the magistrate judge

23

found that petitioner was again seeking federal habeas review of his same San Joaquin County

24

Superior Court first-degree murder and attempted murder convictions that he had unsuccessfully

25

challenged in an earlier petition filed in this court. (Id. at 2) (citing Iseli v. People of the State of

26

California, No. 2:22-cv-01483-TLN-EFB, Doc. Nos. 1, 23, & 31 (E.D. Cal.)). The magistrate

27

judge also noted that it did not appear that petitioner had obtained authorization from the Ninth

28

Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed with a second or successive petition as is required. (Id.)
1

1

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

2

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

3

To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in

4

which to do so has long since passed.1

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, the

7

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

8

analysis.

9

Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to

10

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. “[A] state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas

11

corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition,” and an

12

appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36

13

(2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only with a

14

certificate of appealability). Where, as here, “the court denies habeas relief on procedural

15

grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claims,” the court should issue

16

a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

17

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it

18

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

19

U.S. 473, 484 (2000). But “[w]here a plain procedural bar is present . . . a reasonable jurist

20

[cannot] conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner

21

should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. Because the petitioner’s pending application is clearly

22

barred, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner has filed several documents with this court since the issuance of the findings and
recommendations, but none of them can be construed as objections. Rather, on October 10, 2024,
petitioner filed with this court a request for authorization to file a successive petition. (Doc. No.
9.) It is unclear whether that request was filed with the Ninth Circuit as is required. Thereafter,
on October 10, 2024, petitioner filed a motion for a 14–day extension of time to respond to any
pending matters. (Doc. No. 10.) Finally, on November 11, 2024, petitioner filed what purports to
be a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 11.) All of petitioner’s pending motions and requests will be
denied as having been rendered moot by this order of dismissal.
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

The findings and recommendations issued on August 30, 2024 (Doc. No. 8) are
adopted in full;

4

2.

The petition (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed as successive and unauthorized without

5

prejudice to its re–filing if authorization is first obtained from the Ninth Circuit

6

Court of Appeals as required;

7

3.

8

Petitioner’s other requests and motions (Doc. Nos. 9, 10) are denied as moot in
light of this dismissal order;

9

4.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

10

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated:

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

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