Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01628-1/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

FRANCISCO XAVIER CARBAJAL, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

RALPH DIAZ,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01628-DAD-EPG (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 7)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On December 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendation recommending that the petition be denied. (Doc. No. 7.) Specifically, the 

magistrate judge concluded that (1) petitioner cannot bring a petition directed solely at an expired 

conviction and (2) petitioner previously sought and was denied federal habeas relief with respect 

to his current sentence. (Doc. No. 7.) The findings and recommendations were served on

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

date of service of that order. On January 2, 2020, petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 8.)

/////

Case 1:19-cv-01628-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/25/20 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 

objections, the court holds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and

proper analysis.

In his objections, petitioner claims that he is not challenging his 1992 judgment of 

conviction entered in the Merced County Superior Court in Case No. 17225. Rather, petitioner 

contends he is challenging his 1997 judgment of conviction entered in the Merced County 

Superior Court in Case No. 20873. (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) The petition filed in this federal habeas 

action, however, clearly asserts that petitioner is challenging his 1992 conviction for violating

California Penal Code § 4573.5 which was entered in Merced County Superior Court Case No.

17225 and in which plaintiff received a six-month sentence. (See Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Moreover, 

even if the pending petition did seek to challenging his 1997 conviction, petitioner is not entitled 

to federal habeas relief. In his objections petitioner states that he was sentenced to a two year 

term of imprisonment in connection with his 1997 conviction. (Doc. No. 8 at 8.) Petitioner has 

fully served the sentence imposed on his 1997 conviction, and he “cannot bring a federal habeas 

petition directed solely at [that] conviction[.]” Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 

U.S. 394, 401 (2001). To the extent petitioner is arguing that the sentence he is currently serving 

was improperly enhanced as a result of his 1997 prior conviction which he now contends was 

improperly obtained, petitioner cannot satisfy the procedural prerequisites for relief under § 2254. 

As noted in the findings and recommendation, petitioner previously sought federal habeas relief 

in this court with respect to his current conviction and sentence, and thus, a challenge to his 

current sentence would be a “second or successive” one under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner 

has not sought or obtained leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed with a 

second or successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3)(A).

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

a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner 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. 

Case 1:19-cv-01628-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/25/20 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

§ 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 

the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability if 

“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 & n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the court finds that 

reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should be denied to be

debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. 

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendation issued on December 11, 2019 (Doc. No. 7) are

adopted;

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01628-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 3