(HC) Maine v. Martinez, No. 1:2020cv00303 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 29 Findings and Recommendations, DENYING Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DIRECTING Clerk of Court to CLOSE CASE, and DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/25/2024. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH HASKELL MAINE, Petitioner, 12 13 14 15 16 17 v. LUIS MARTINEZ, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-0303 JLT HBK (HC) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Docs. 25, 29) Joseph Haskell Maine is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with his Second Amended 18 Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting juror bias. (Doc. 25.) 19 Petitioner contends: “Juror No. 3669228 admitted to a bias opinion against the defendant and is a 20 family member of the victim family.” (Id. at 4.) 21 The magistrate judge reviewed the state court decisions and observed that “the trial court 22 promptly convened a hearing after Juror No. 3669228 made known to the trial court that he saw 23 someone familiar in the audience.” (Doc. 29 at 14.) The magistrate judge observed the trial court 24 questioned the juror, and “neither the trial court nor defense counsel viewed Juror No. 3669228 as 25 biased against Petitioner or favorable to the prosecution.” (Id.) Further, the magistrate judge 26 noted Petitioner did not “submit any evidence or even argument that casts doubt on trial court’s 27 apparent credibility determination.” (Id.) The magistrate judge found “the Superior Court 28 reasonably concluded that Juror No. 3669228 showed no actual or implied bias that resulted in a 1 1 Petitioner being denied due process during his trial.” (Id. at 15.) In addition, the magistrate judge 2 determined that “the state court’s rejection of Petitioner’s juror bias claim was not contrary to, or 3 an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, nor was it based on 4 an unreasonable determination of the facts.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended 5 the petition be denied. (Id.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 7 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 29 at 16.) The Court advised him that the “failure 8 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., 9 citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file 10 11 objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 12 case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 13 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 14 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather 15 an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 16 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only 17 issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 18 resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 19 presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; 20 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the 21 merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the 22 existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 23 Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the petition should be 24 denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of encouragement to 25 proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a 26 constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Based 27 upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 28 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 4, 2024 (Doc. 29), are 2 1 ADOPTED in full. 2 2. The Second Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 25) is DENIED. 3 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 25, 2024 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.