(HC) Ruiz v. On Habeas Corpus, No. 1:2021cv00575 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Declining to Issue Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/18/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOEY ROBERT RUIZ, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:21-cv-00575-DAD-SKO (HC) Petitioner, v. ON HABEAS CORPUS, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Doc. Nos. 1, 12) 17 18 Petitioner Joey Robert Ruiz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened petitioner’s petition and issued 22 findings and recommendations recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief 23 be summarily dismissed because petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for federal 24 habeas relief, failed to name a proper respondent, and failed to exhaust his claims by first 25 presenting them to the highest state court prior to seeking federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 12.) In 26 addition, the findings and recommendations concluded that petitioner had not complied with Rule 27 2(c) the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases by failing to adequately set forth grounds for 28 federal habeas relief. (Id. at 3.) In particular, the findings and recommendations note that 1 1 “petitioner makes a conclusory allegation that the parole board violated state law, but he makes 2 no argument in support of his claim, nor does he provide any facts supporting his claim.” (Id.) 3 The pending findings and recommendations were served on petitioner with notice that any 4 objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of service. (Id. at 4.) To date, 5 petitioner has not filed any objections to the pending findings and recommendations, and the time 6 in which to do so has passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 8 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 9 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to 11 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. “[A] state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas 12 corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition,” and an 13 appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 14 (2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only with a 15 certificate of appealability). Specifically, the federal rules governing habeas cases brought by 16 state prisoners require a district court issuing an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or 17 deny therein a certificate of appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A 18 judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial 19 showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must 20 indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Here, petitioner has not made 21 such a showing. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued. 22 Accordingly, 23 1. 24 The findings and recommendations issued April 8, 2021 (Doc. No. 12) are adopted in full; 25 2. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is summarily dismissed; 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: May 18, 2021 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.
