(HC) Oregon v. Santoro, No. 1:2017cv00259 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 17 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Court DENY the Petition and Decline to Issue a Certificate of Appealability re 1 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/18/2020. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS OREGON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. KELLY SANTORO, 15 No. 1:17-cv-00259-DAD-JDP (HC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Respondent. (Doc. No. 17) 16 17 18 Petitioner Juan Carlos Oregon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 18, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 22 recommendations, recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief be denied on 23 the merits with respect to each of petitioner’s claims. (Doc. No. 17.) The findings and 24 recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto 25 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the order. (Id. at 11.) No 26 objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review 2 of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and 3 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 5 a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 6 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 7 under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 8 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 9 court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 10 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 11 Cir. 1997). 12 If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only issue a 13 certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 14 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 15 establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 16 should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 17 deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 18 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 19 In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 20 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 21 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 22 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 23 petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The court therefore declines to issue 24 a certificate of appealability. 25 Accordingly: 26 1. 27 28 The findings and recommendations issued on February 18, 2020 (Doc. No. 17), are adopted in full; 2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 2 1 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, and 2 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 18, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.