Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00083/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00083-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johny Heu
Petitioner
People of the State of California
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

JOHNY HEU,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00083-DAD-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

(Doc. No. 8)

Petitioner Johny Heu is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a 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 8, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending dismissal of the habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 

No. 8.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the

order. 

On November 25, 2019, petitioner filed objections to the magistrate’s findings and 

recommendations, arguing that habeas relief should be granted under the Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. (Doc. No. 9). In those objections, plaintiff fails to dispute 

Case 1:19-cv-00083-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 01/14/20 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

the magistrate judge’s finding that the court lacks jurisdiction over habeas petitions brought 

pursuant to § 2254 that challenge only a restitution order.

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.

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 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, 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-00083-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 01/14/20 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 November 8, 2019 (Doc. No. 8) are

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction; 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00083-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3