Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01161/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01161-1/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

BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR, 

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT,

Petitioner,

v.

J. W. SULLIVAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01161-LJO-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

PETITION AT SCREENING

ECF No. 9

Petitioner Brandon Alexander Favor, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The court has referred this matter to a 

magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 10, 2019, 

the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the court dismiss the 

petition and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 9. On December 27, 2019, 

petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 10. In his objections, 

petitioner failed to address the deficiencies in his petition described in the findings and 

recommendations. Id. Therefore, petitioner’s objections are dismissed. 

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 

Case 1:19-cv-01161-LJO-JDP Document 11 Filed 01/06/20 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

court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis.

In addition, a 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 only allowed in certain 

circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Rule 11 

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). Where, as here, the court 

denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, 

the court will 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). Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s

decision debatable or conclude that the petition should proceed further. Thus, the court declines

to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 10, 2019, ECF No. 10, are 

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01161-LJO-JDP Document 11 Filed 01/06/20 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

Case 1:19-cv-01161-LJO-JDP Document 11 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3