From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sepeda v. Fresno Cnty.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 5, 2022
1:22-cv-00522-ADA-SAB (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022)

Opinion

1:22-cv-00522-ADA-SAB (HC)

10-05-2022

TONY SEPEDA, Petitioner, v. FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, Respondent.


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 (ECF. No. 7)

Petitioner Tony Sepeda is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 July 13, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies and failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. (ECF No. 7.) 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. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time to do so has passed.

The findings and recommendations were signed on July 12, 2022, but not docketed until July 13, 2022.

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, the Court holds 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 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 allowed in only certain circumstances. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “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 & 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 July 13, 2022 (ECF No. 7), are adopted in full;
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice;
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.


Summaries of

Sepeda v. Fresno Cnty.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 5, 2022
1:22-cv-00522-ADA-SAB (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022)
Case details for

Sepeda v. Fresno Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:TONY SEPEDA, Petitioner, v. FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 5, 2022

Citations

1:22-cv-00522-ADA-SAB (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022)