Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01394/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01394-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN MARON ROBINSON,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF MACOMDER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-1394 JLT SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 

COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND 

CLOSE CASE

(Doc. 6)

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Calvin Maron Robinson 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 assigned magistrate judge 

performed a preliminary review of the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 

Cases, and found the petition was unexhausted. (Doc. 6 at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 

recommended the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice. (Id.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 

any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 6 at 3.) The Court advised Petitioner the “[f]ailure 

to file objections within the specified time may waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 4, citing 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file objections, and 

the time to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

Case 1:24-cv-01394-JLT-SKO Document 8 Filed 12/27/24 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

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 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 only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 

appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(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—

(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

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(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 petition, it may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner 

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

make a substantial showing, 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 finds Petitioner did not make the required substantial 

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

Case 1:24-cv-01394-JLT-SKO Document 8 Filed 12/27/24 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

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 

proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the 

Court ORDERS.

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 21, 2024 (Doc. 6) are

ADOPTED in full.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.

4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-01394-JLT-SKO Document 8 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 3