Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02480/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02480-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Aguilar Santoyo
Petitioner
Sutter County
Respondent

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE AGUILAR SANTOYO,

Petitioner,

v.

SUTTER COUNTY,

Respondent.

No. 2:23-cv-02480-DAD-EFB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THE PETITION

(Doc. No. 6)

Petitioner Jorge Aguilar Santoyo is a former detainee of the Sutter County Jail proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. The 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 24, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge dismissed the operative petition and 

granted petitioner leave to amend within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of that order. 

(Doc. No. 5.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had filed his petition 

challenging what he claimed was excessive bail set in his underlying state court criminal action 

but had since been released from pretrial detention, which mooted his petition. (Id. at 2.) The 

magistrate judge additionally found that the excessive bail claim raised by the petition is subject 

to Younger abstention and that accordingly the petition must be dismissed for failing to state a

/////

Case 2:23-cv-02480-DAD-EFB Document 7 Filed 12/06/24 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

cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Id.) To date, petitioner has not filed an amended

petition.

Accordingly, on June 17, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be dismissed without 

leave to amend due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 6 at 1.) The pending findings 

and recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained notice that any objections 

thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service. (Id. at 2.) To date, 

petitioner has not filed any objections to those findings and recommendations and the time in 

which to do so has passed.

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, the court concludes that the 

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 

issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 

right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). If a court denies 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). 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). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 

would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 

debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 17, 2024 (Doc. No. 6) are 

adopted in full;

Case 2:23-cv-02480-DAD-EFB Document 7 Filed 12/06/24 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

2. The operative petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this action (Doc. No. 1) 

is dismissed without further leave to amend;

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: December 6, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02480-DAD-EFB Document 7 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 3