Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00134/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00134-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Cates
Defendant
Alejandro Sanchez
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

B. CATES,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-00134-KES-SAB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Doc. 11

Petitioner Alejandro Sanchez 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 a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 17, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending that the petition be dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition. Doc. 11. 

The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 

objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and 

recommendations. Id. On May 8, 2024, petitioner filed timely objections. Doc. 12.

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

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

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

Petitioner’s objections argue that AEDPA’s bar on successive petitions should not apply under 

Case 1:24-cv-00134-KES-SAB Document 13 Filed 12/13/24 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

the exception contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B). Doc. 12 at 1–2. That provision allows a 

prisoner to file a successive petition if (1) “the factual predicate for the claim could not have been 

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence”; and (2) “the facts underlying the 

claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish 

by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would 

have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i)–(ii).

There are two problems with petitioner’s argument. First, he contends that he could not 

have previously discovered the proffered Fourth Amendment claim, but he does not contend that 

no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty without the supposed Fourth Amendment 

violation. See Doc. 12 at 1–3. He therefore fails to satisfy the second prong of § 2244(b)(2)(B). 

Second, the claim which he asserts could not have been discovered is a Fourth Amendment 

unreasonable search claim, see id., and this claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review in 

any event. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976) (“Where [a] [s]tate has provided an 

opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be 

granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional 

search or seizure was introduced at his trial.”). Therefore, the findings and recommendations are 

correct that the petition should be dismissed as successive.

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. 

§ 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 jurists 

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 

correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain 

procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 

reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 

Case 1:24-cv-00134-KES-SAB Document 13 Filed 12/13/24 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

that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id.

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

determination that the petition should be 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 April 17, 2024, Doc. 11, are adopted in 

full;

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

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: December 12, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00134-KES-SAB Document 13 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 3