Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00119-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

RUBEN ALBERTO DELGADO, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

S. LAKE,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-00119-DAD-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 

CASE

(Doc. No. 5)

Petitioner Ruben Alberto Delgado, Jr. is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was 

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On August 27, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 5.) The findings 

and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 4.) To date, petitioner has not filed 

objections, and the time for doing so has passed. 

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00119-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/14/20 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the

court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

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 writ of habeas corpus has no 

absolute right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 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 

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

the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 27, 2019 (Doc. No. 5) are 

adopted in full;

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00119-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2