Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01221/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01221-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Arce
Respondent
William Blowheart Lee
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

WILLIAM BLOWHEART LEE,

Petitioner,

v.

CARLOS ARCE, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-01221-KES-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 

AND CLOSE CASE

(Doc. 8)

Petitioner William Blowheart Lee 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 October 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Doc. 8. Those findings and 

recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. No objections have been filed, and the 

deadline to do so has expired. 

Case 1:24-cv-01221-KES-SKO Document 9 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

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, the Court concludes that the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 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 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 

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

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

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:24-cv-01221-KES-SKO Document 9 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

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 15, 2024, Doc. 8, are

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 

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-01221-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/10/24 Page 3 of 3