Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00622/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00622-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corcoran California State Prison
Respondent
Jeffrey Todd Sipes
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

JEFFREY TODD SIPES,

Petitioner,

v.

CORCORAN CALIFORNIA STATE 

PRISON,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-00622-JLT-EPG (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. 10)

Jeffrey Todd Sipes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus brought 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 October 8, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 10.) On November 20 

and 21, 2024, the Court received handwritten pages of “facts” and various documents, which the 

Court construes as objections to the findings and recommendations. (Docs. 11, 13.)

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.

Case 1:24-cv-00622-JLT-EPG Document 14 Filed 12/23/24 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

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. 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 Petitioner should be 

allowed 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.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 8, 2024 (Doc. 10) 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.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00622-JLT-EPG Document 14 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2