Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01028/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01028-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Madden
Respondent
Antonio Trejo Perez
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO TREJO PEREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND MADDEN,

Respondent.

No. 1:17-cv-01028-DAD-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

(Doc. No. 19)

Petitioner Antonio Trejo Perez 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. § 2241. 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 September 25, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that the petition be denied because petitioner’s primary claim—

that his constitutional rights were violated because the state trial court erroneously excluded a 

witness’ prior statements—was without merit. (Doc. No. 19.) Specifically, the pending findings 

and recommendations found that “a reasonable jurist could conclude that excluding [that 

witness’] prior statements was appropriate because the excluded statement[s’] probative value 

was outweighed by the concern for jury confusion.” (Id. at 6.) The magistrate judge found that 

petitioner’s additional claim—that the state trial court miscalculated the amount of restitution he 

Case 1:17-cv-01028-DAD-JDP Document 22 Filed 03/10/20 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

must pay—did not challenge the legality of his confinement and thus was not a cognizable habeas 

claim. (Id. at 7.) The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner with notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the service thereof. (Id. at 8.) 

On October 7, 2019, petitioner filed objections to the magistrate’s findings and recommendations. 

(Doc. No. 20). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 

petitioner’s objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. In his objections, petitioner merely repeats the same 

arguments that the pending findings and recommendations considered and found to be 

insufficient to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (See Doc. No. 20.) Petitioner’s 

objections therefore do not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations, which the undersigned will adopt in full. 

Having concluded that the pending petition must be denied, the court now turns to 

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. 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). 

Specifically, the federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district 

court issuing an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of 

appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A judge shall grant a certificate of 

appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy 

this standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional 

claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: [t]he petitioner 

must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here,

petitioner has not made such a showing. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be 

issued.

Case 1:17-cv-01028-DAD-JDP Document 22 Filed 03/10/20 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

 Accordingly,

1. The September 25, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 19) are adopted 

in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:17-cv-01028-DAD-JDP Document 22 Filed 03/10/20 Page 3 of 3