Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01331/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01331-1/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

GREGORY W. STEWART,

Petitioner,

v.

J. MACOMBER,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01331-NONE-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

PETITION

(Doc. No. 7)

Petitioner Gregory W. Stewart, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action, 

seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to 

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

On February 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending the petition be dismissed due to this court’s lack of jurisdiction 

over petitioner’s unauthorized second or successive petition. (Doc. No. 7.) Those findings and 

recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

due within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) On February 21, 2020, petitioner filed his objections to the 

findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 8.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) 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. 

Case 1:19-cv-01331-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 03/04/20 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

Petitioner has filed a successive petition for habeas relief and has failed to provide proof of leave 

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed with a successive petition. Petitioner’s 

objections note numerous filings before the Ninth Circuit but point to no order from that court 

granting him leave to file the present petition. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider 

his petition. 

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. See 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 dismisses 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)).

In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 

petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The court therefore declines to issue 

a certificate of appealability. 

/////

Case 1:19-cv-01331-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 03/04/20 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 February 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 7) are

adopted in full;

2. The petition (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 

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

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 

purposes of closure and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01331-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 3