Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01272/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01272-3/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

CESAR ALEMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERTSON,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01272-DAD-EPG (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS AND DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY

(Doc. No. 13, 16)

Petitioner Cesar Aleman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 

petition for 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 October 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 13.) Specifically, 

the magistrate judge found that the pending petition is a second or successive petition and that 

petitioner has not first obtained leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed with 

such a petition as is required. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations were served on 

petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days 

after service. (Id. at 5.) On November 12, 2019, petitioner filed a request to extend time to file 

objections to the pending findings and recommendations by 60 days. (Doc. No. 14.) The court 

Case 1:19-cv-01272-DAD-EPG Document 17 Filed 01/28/20 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

granted petitioner’s request and set a deadline of January 13, 2020 for petitioner to file his 

objections, if any. (Doc. No. 15.) In lieu of objections, petitioner filed a motion to stay on 

December 18, 2019. (Doc. No. 16.)

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.

In his motion to stay, petitioner does not object to the pending findings and 

recommendations but instead requests this court “grant an order of a stay and abeyance as [he] 

obtain[s] authorization from the court of appeals.” (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) Nonetheless, the 

undersigned agrees with the conclusion reached in the pending findings and recommendations 

that this court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the pending petition because petitioner did not 

first obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file his successive petition. 

Accordingly, the court does not have jurisdiction over the pending petition and will deny

petitioner’s request for the issuance of a stay.

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

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. “[A] state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas 

corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition,” and an 

appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 

(2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only with a 

certificate of appealability). 

Where, as here, “the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the 

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claims,” the court should issue a certificate of appealability 

“if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 

of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). But 

“[w]here a plain procedural bar is present . . . a reasonable jurist [cannot] conclude either that the 

district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed 

/////

Case 1:19-cv-01272-DAD-EPG Document 17 Filed 01/28/20 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

further.” Id. Because the petitioner’s pending application is clearly barred on jurisdictional 

grounds, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 11, 2019 (Doc. No. 13) are 

adopted in full;

2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction because it is an unauthorized second or successive petition; 

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

4. Petitioner’s motion to stay this action (Doc. No. 16) is denied; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01272-DAD-EPG Document 17 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 3