Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-00834-NONE-JDP
04-02-2020
AARON LAMONT STRIBLING, Petitioner, v. K. CLARK, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION
(Doc. No. 11)
Petitioner Aaron Lamont Stribling, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 6.) 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 February 28, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 11.) The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that objections thereto were due within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) The time for filing objections has passed and petitioner has failed to do so.
The findings and recommendations indicated in the caption that the recommendation was to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but the reasoning contained therein rested solely on failure to state a claim. (See generally Doc. 11.) --------
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. The magistrate judge correctly concluded that the petition presented only vague and conclusory allegations, none of which present viable grounds for the granting of federal habeas relief. In this regard, as the "grounds for relief" in his form petition petitioner refers to an attached, handwritten exhibit he entitles "Let Freedom Ring," which, to the extent it is legible, presents no comprehensible basis for habeas relief. (See Doc. No. 6 at 45.)
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 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 with this habeas action. The court therefore declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted in full;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 6) 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.
Dated: April 2 , 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE