Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01594/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01594-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Espinoza
Petitioner
S. Sherman
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 15, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss 

the petition. (Doc. 11). On May 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued Findings 

and Recommendations to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 15). This Findings and 

JOSE ESPINOZA,

 Petitioner,

v.

S. SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-001594-AWI-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS (Doc. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY

ORDER DISREGARDING AS MOOT 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. 21)

Case 1:15-cv-01594-AWI-JLT Document 22 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Recommendations was served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 

filed within twenty-one days from the date of service of that order. Petitioner filed a motion for a 

thirty-day extension of time on May 25, 2016. (Doc. 16). On May 31, 2016, 2015, Petitioner filed 

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 17). On June 1, 2016, 

Respondent filed the reply. (Doc. 18). Due to an administrative error, on June 3, 2016, the Court 

granted Petitioner’s motion for extension of time. (Doc. 19). Petitioner then filed a document entitled 

“Reply” to respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 20). On June 21, 2016, Respondent filed an 

objection to Petitioner’s “Reply,” contending that it was not authorized and that it was not responsive. 

(Doc. 21). 

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

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections, 

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations is supported by the 

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections, including Petitioner’s June 16, 2016 “Reply,”

present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Moreover, 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—

Case 1:15-cv-01594-AWI-JLT Document 22 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 4
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

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

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 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 2, 2016 (Doc. 15), is ADOPTED IN 

FULL;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 11), is GRANTED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file; 

Case 1:15-cv-01594-AWI-JLT Document 22 Filed 07/08/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

5. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and,

6. Respondent’s motion to strike (Doc. 21), is DISREGARDED as moot.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01594-AWI-JLT Document 22 Filed 07/08/16 Page 4 of 4