(HC) Cisneros v. Matteson, No. 1:2021cv00201 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING Habeas Petition, for Writ of Corpus, DIRECTING Clerk of Court to assign District Judge for purpose of closing case and then close case, and DECLINING to issue a Certificate of Appealability 21 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/1/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN CISNEROS, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. 15 16 17 18 GISELLE MATTESON, No. 1:21-cv-00201-NONE-SKO (HC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION, FOR WRIT OF CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND THEN CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Doc. No. 21) Respondent. 19 20 Petitioner Ivan Cisneros is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 21 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a 22 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On September 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 24 recommendations recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss the pending petition as 25 untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. (Doc. No. 21.) Those findings and 26 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 27 were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. No objections have been filed. However, on 28 November 15, 2021, petitioner filed a motion to withdraw the habeas petition. (Doc. No. 26.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 6 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 7 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El 8 v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 9 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 10 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the 11 petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 12 that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 13 were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 14 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 15 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 16 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 17 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 18 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 19 proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 20 Accordingly, 21 1. 22 The findings and recommendations issued on September 15, 2021, (Doc. No. 21), are adopted in full; 23 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 9), is granted; 24 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to close the case; and 5. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.