Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01731/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01731-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fisher
Respondent
Armando Jacobo Gonzalez
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

ARMANDO JACOBO GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

FISHER,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01731-NONE-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

PETITION 

(Doc. No. 11)

Petitioner Armando Jacobo Gonzalez, a state prisoner proceeding in this action without 

counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 February 18, 2020, after issuing an order requiring petitioner to show cause in writing 

why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely filed (Doc. No. 9), to which no response 

was filed by petitioner, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending the petition be dismissed as untimely filed. (Doc. No. 11.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that objections were due within 

fourteen (14) days. (Id.) The time for filing objections has passed and petitioner failed to do so. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Case 1:19-cv-01731-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/18/20 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

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Here, although the petition indicates that petitioner’s direct appeal became final in “2018”, 

a search of the docket from the California Supreme Court case number provided, S242837, 

reveals that the relevant direct appeal became final on August 30, 2017. As a result, this petition, 

filed more than two years later, is untimely absent a showing that equitable tolling should apply. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). No such showing is apparent from the face of the petition, nor has 

petitioner provided any grounds for equitable tolling in any other document. 

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 

a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 

absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 

under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 

(2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 

court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 

petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 

Cir. 1997). 

If, as here, a court dismisses a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only 

issue a certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made 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 concludes 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 wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 

petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The court therefore declines to issue 

a certificate of appealability.

Case 1:19-cv-01731-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/18/20 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 findings and recommendations issued on February 18, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed as time–barred; 

3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 

purposes of closure and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01731-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 3