(HC) Ramirez v. Kovranvic, No. 1:2023cv00268 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment and Close Case; ORDER DECLINING to Issue Certificate of Appealability, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/16/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. 16 18 19 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 11) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 15 17 No. 1:23-cv-00268-JLT-SKO (HC) KOVRANVIC, ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Respondents. The assigned Magistrate Judge conducted a preliminary review of the petition and 20 determined it to be nonsensical. (Doc. 8.) The Court provided Petitioner blank forms to file an 21 amended habeas petition and granted him 30 days to do so. Petitioner did not file an amended 22 petition within the time provided. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 23 recommendations to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim for relief. (Doc. 11.) The 24 Court granted Petitioner 21 days to file objections. He filed affidavits concerning the case. (Docs. 25 12, 13.) The affidavits are, for the most part, illegible and nonsensical, although Petitioner 26 disagrees with the Magistrate Judge and contends that “[t]here[’s] no need for amend.” (Doc. 13.) 27 28 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s responses, the Court 1 1 concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record 2 and proper analysis. 3 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 4 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 5 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 6 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 7 appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 (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. (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. (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from— 15 (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 16 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 17 18 19 20 21 (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. (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 22 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 23 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 24 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 25 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 26 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 27 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 28 The Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial 2 1 of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists 2 would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus 3 relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court 4 declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. 6 The findings and recommendations issued on April 12, 2023, (Doc. 11), are ADOPTED IN FULL. 7 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 9 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 10 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 16, 2023 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.