Opinion
No. 1:20-cv-00824-NONE-JLT (HC)
07-16-2020
RAFAEL ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 8)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE
ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO FORWARD PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS PACKET TO PETITIONER
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks compassionate release from state custody on the basis that he is a first-time offender, that he was released on bail pending sentencing, and because of "a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19." (Doc. 1 at 2-3.) On June 16, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the pending petition be dismissed because it failed to raise any claims cognizable on federal habeas corpus review. (Doc. No. 8.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of that order. On June 25, 2020, petitioner filed objections. (Doc. No. 11.)
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 present no grounds for questioning the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his habeas petition. However, in an abundance of caution and because petitioner's objections arguably raise concerns about the conditions of his confinement, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to forward petitioner a copy of the "Prisoner Civil Rights Packet."
In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 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). Specifically, the federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court issuing an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). "Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made such a showing. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued.
Accordingly, the court orders as follows:
1. The findings and recommendations, filed June 16, 2020 (Doc. No. 8), are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED;
3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file;
4. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the "Prisoner Civil Rights Packet," which is also available on the court's website.
This order terminates the action in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE