Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00860/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00860-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Lamar Foster
Petitioner
Josie Gastelo
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

CRAIG LAMAR FOSTER,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSIE GASTELO, Warden of California 

Men’s Colony,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-00860-DAD-JLT (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

(Doc. Nos. 1, 13)

Petitioner Craig Lamar Foster 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. § 2254. 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 November 7, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending the the petition for federal habeas corpus relief be denied on its 

merits. (Doc. No. 13.) Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the 

date of service of that order. Thereafter, petitioner requested, and the court granted, a thirty (30) 

day extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 14, 15.) 

On January 13, 2020, petitioner timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

(Doc. No. 16.)

Case 1:19-cv-00860-DAD-JLT Document 18 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the 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 recommendations are supported by the 

record and proper analysis. 

Petitioner's objections fail to present any grounds for questioning the magistrate judge's 

analysis because he merely reiterates therein the arguments raised in his petition for habeas 

corpus. (Doc. No. 16.) In the pending findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge 

thoroughly reviewed petitioner’s arguments that: 1) his trial attorney provided ineffective 

assistance by failing to move for an acquittal of petitioner on the attempted murder charge

brought against him; 2) the trial court erred by not providing the jury a more thorough instruction 

with respect to the law regarding transferred intent; and 3) the trial court erred by giving a 

supplemental jury instruction on imperfect self-defense. (Doc. No. 13 at 19–35.) After reviewing 

the relevant legal standards and applying those standards to petitioner’s claims of ineffective 

counsel, jury instruction and trial court error, the magistrate judge properly concluded that federal 

habeas corpus relief was unavailable to petitioner in connection with those claims. (Id.)

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. 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 denies 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, 

Case 1:19-cv-00860-DAD-JLT Document 18 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

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. Therefore, the court declines to issue 

a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 7, 2019 (Doc. No. 13), is 

adopted in full;

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

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

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00860-DAD-JLT Document 18 Filed 03/10/20 Page 3 of 3