Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00670/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00670-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph Diaz
Respondent
Javier Romero Oquita
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

JAVIER ROMERO OQUITA,

Petitioner,

v.

RALPH DIAZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00670-AWI-SAB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

(ECF No. 18)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 7, 2019,

1

the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 

Recommendation that recommended the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (ECF No. 

18). This Findings and Recommendation was served on Petitioner and contained notice that any 

objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of that order. On 

December 2, 2019, Petitioner filed timely objections. (ECF No. 19).

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 Findings and Recommendation is supported by the 

record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendation. 

 

1 The findings and recommendation was signed on November 6, 2019 and entered on the docket on November 7, 

2019.

Case 1:19-cv-00670-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/27/20 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

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, 335-36 (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–

(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 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 Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be denied debatable or 

Case 1:19-cv-00670-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/27/20 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

wrong, or that the issue presented is deserving of encouragement 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on November 7, 2019 (ECF No. 18) is 

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

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

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: February 27, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00670-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3