Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00310/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00310-3/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

JOHNNY LEE BRIGGS,

Petitioner,

v.

C. SCHUYLER,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-00310-KES-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER 

JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

Docs. 1, 11

Petitioner Johnny Lee Briggs 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. 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 June 7, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 

deny the petition on its merits. Doc. 11. Those findings and recommendations were served upon 

all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days 

after service. On June 24, 2024, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

Doc. 14. 

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

Case 1:24-cv-00310-KES-SKO Document 19 Filed 12/10/24 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

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

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

analysis. Petitioner’s objections fail to establish any error in the findings and recommendations. 

See id. at 2–5.

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 petitioner’s petition, the court may issue a certificate of appealability 

only 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, 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 

Case 1:24-cv-00310-KES-SKO Document 19 Filed 12/10/24 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

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

In the present case, the Court finds 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 debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 

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

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 7, 2024, Doc. 11, are

ADOPTED IN FULL;

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00310-KES-SKO Document 19 Filed 12/10/24 Page 3 of 3