(HC) Garcia v. Koenig, No. 1:2020cv01698 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Direction Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment and Close Case, Certificate of Appealability Denied, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/22/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RALPH GONZALES GARCIA, 8 Petitioner, 9 10 11 CASE NO. 1:20-cv-01698-AWI-HBK (HC) v. KOENIG, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTION CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 12 (Doc. No. 10) 13 14 15 Petitioner Ralph Gonzales Garcia is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a 16 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 9, 2021, the magistrate 17 judge assigned to the case issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition. Doc. No. 18 10. These findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any 19 objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of that order. To date, no 20 objections have been filed. 21 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 22 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 23 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 24 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 25 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his 26 petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 27 322, 335–36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 28 appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 1 2 4 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings. 5 (c) 3 6 (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from— 7 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or 8 9 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 10 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 11 12 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 13 14 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 15 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 16 § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists 17 could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 18 19 different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 20 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 21 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 22 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 23 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 24 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 25 proceed further. Thus, the Court will decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. 4 The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 10) issued on March 9, 2021, are ADOPTED in full; 5 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED; 6 3. The Clerk of Court shall ENTER judgment and CLOSE the file; and 7 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: April 22, 2021 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.