Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01443/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01443-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LEE ELLIS,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN BITER,

Respondent.

No. 1:17-cv-01443-DAD-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

(Doc. No. 31)

Petitioner Robert Lee Ellis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred 

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On March 30, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief be denied on the merits. (Doc. 

No. 31.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that each of the four grounds for federal habeas 

relief asserted in petitioner’s pending petition—(1) that the trial court violated his constitutional 

rights when it denied his motion for a new trial due to juror misconduct; (2) that the trial court

violated his constitutional rights when it failed to give an imperfect self-defense jury instruction; 

(3) that the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction was coercive, violating petitioner’s 

Case 1:17-cv-01443-DAD-JDP Document 32 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

constitutional rights; and (4) that the cumulative effect of the trial court errors warranted the 

granting of relief—all fail on their merits. (Id. at 5–6, 17.) Those findings and recommendations 

were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 17.) No objections have been filed and the 

time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 

a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 

absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 

under certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 

(2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 

court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 

petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 

Cir. 1997). If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only 

issue a certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the 

petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 

that) the petition should have been resolved in a 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. 880, 893 (1983)). Here, petitioner has not made 

such a showing. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:17-cv-01443-DAD-JDP Document 32 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

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

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 30, 2020 (Doc. No. 31) are 

adopted in full;

2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 

3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01443-DAD-JDP Document 32 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 3