(HC) Stribling v. Clark, No. 1:2019cv00834 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Petition signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/2/2020. Certificate of Appealability is Declined. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON LAMONT STRIBLING, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 K. CLARK, 15 Case No. 1:19-cv-00834-NONE-JDP ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION (Doc. No. 11) Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Aaron Lamont Stribling, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this 18 action, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 6.) This matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. On February 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 22 recommendations recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for failure to state a 23 cognizable claim for federal habeas relief.1 (Doc. No. 11.) The findings and recommendations 24 were served on petitioner and contained notice that objections thereto were due within fourteen 25 (14) days. (Id.) The time for filing objections has passed and petitioner has failed to do so. 26 27 28 1 The findings and recommendations indicated in the caption that the recommendation was to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but the reasoning contained therein rested solely on failure to state a claim. (See generally Doc. 11.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 The magistrate judge correctly concluded that the petition presented only vague and conclusory 5 allegations, none of which present viable grounds for the granting of federal habeas relief. In this 6 regard, as the “grounds for relief” in his form petition petitioner refers to an attached, handwritten 7 exhibit he entitles “Let Freedom Ring,” which, to the extent it is legible, presents no 8 comprehensible basis for habeas relief. (See Doc. No. 6 at 45.) 9 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 10 a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 11 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 12 under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 13 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 14 court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 15 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 16 Cir. 1997). 17 If, as here, a court dismisses a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only 18 issue a certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 19 denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the 20 petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 21 that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 22 were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 23 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 24 In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 25 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 26 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 27 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 28 2 1 petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further with this habeas action. The court 2 therefore declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 3 Accordingly: 4 1. 5 The findings and recommendations issued on February 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted in full; 6 2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 6) is dismissed; 7 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 8 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 9 10 11 12 purposes of closure and to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.