Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01069/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01069-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Taylor
Respondent
Anthony Robert Tirado
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

ANTHONY ROBERT TIRADO,

Petitioner,

v.

TIMOTHY TAYLOR,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-01069-KES-SAB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. 4)

Petitioner Anthony Robert Tirado is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 October 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

that recommended dismissing the petition. Doc. 4. The findings and recommendations were 

served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) 

days of the date of service of the findings and recommendations. Id. To date, no objections have 

been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 

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

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court holds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Case 1:24-cv-01069-KES-SAB Document 5 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 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

2

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

whether a certificate of appealability (“COA”) should issue. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 

952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Where a petition purportedly brought under § 2241 is merely a 

‘disguised’ § 2255 motion, the petitioner cannot appeal from the denial of that petition without a 

COA.”). A petitioner 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); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To obtain a certificate of 

appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner “must make a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right, . . . includ[ing] showing 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, 483–84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 

880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 

be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 8, 2024, Doc. 4, are ADOPTED 

in full;

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

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: December 19, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01069-KES-SAB Document 5 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 2