Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00727/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00727-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rudy Jimenez
Petitioner
Superior Court of California, County of Kings
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

RUDY JIMENEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

COUNTY OF KINGS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00727-NONE-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

PETITION

(Doc. No. 11)

On May 17, 2019, petitioner Rudy Jimenez, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, 

filed with this federal court a “Petition for Resentencing” under California Penal Code § 1170.95. 

(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 May 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order requiring petitioner to 

show cause in writing why the petition should not be summarily dismissed, pointing out three 

obvious flaws: (1) the petition is addressed to the Kings County Superior Court, not this federal 

court; (2) petitioner does not explain why he is entitled to resentencing; (3) petitioner was 

convicted and sentenced in state court more than two decades ago, in 1997, making it difficult to 

imagine how any challenge to his sentence would be timely. (Doc. No. 6.) Despite having 

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00727-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/04/20 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

requested and been given an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause (Doc. No. 9), 

plaintiff failed to respond. 

Accordingly, on February 7, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that the pending petition be dismissed on the grounds that it is 

plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 11.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto 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 

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

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 

Case 1:19-cv-00727-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/04/20 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

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.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 7, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are

adopted in full;

2. The petition (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 

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 4, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00727-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 3