Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00957/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00957-1/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

ERIC THOMAS WOLFE,

Petitioner,

v.

S. PERRY,

Respondent.

No. 1:15-cv-00957-DAD-SAB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 17)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 6, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendation recommending that the pending petition be denied. (Doc. No. 17.) On July 22, 

2016, petitioner filed timely objections to the findings and recommendation.1 (Doc. No. 20.) In 

his objections, petitioner largely repeats arguments previously made in his petition.

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 

 

1 Although petitioner’s filing was labeled as a traverse, the court construes that filing as 

objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation. See Castro v. United States, 

540 U.S. 375, 381-82 (2003) (courts may recharacterize a pro se motion to “create a better 

correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis”); 

Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.2d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (courts have a duty to 

construe pro se pleadings and motions liberally).

Case 1:15-cv-00957-DAD-SAB Document 21 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendation are supported by the record 

and proper analysis.

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, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas 

petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that 

jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the 

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 

than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 

U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 

determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented 

are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court declines to issue a 

certificate of appealability.

For the reasons set forth above:

1. The findings and recommendation issued May 6, 2016 (Doc. No. 17) are adopted in 

full;

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: September 14, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00957-DAD-SAB Document 21 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 2