Opinion

(HC) Thomas, Jr. v. Sutton

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Jan 8, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.6%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 BOBBY THOMAS, JR., No. 1:20-cv-01409-NONE-JLT (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE

14 v. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO

15 ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE

CASE

16

SUTTON, Warden, (Doc. Nos. 1, 9)

17

Respondent.

18

19 Petitioner Bobby Thomas, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a

20 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner

21 challenges his denial of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings and alleges that the

22 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is failing to adequately protect him from

23 the coronavirus. (Id. at 5–7.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 302.

25 On October 19, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

26 recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable ground for

27 relief. (Doc. No. 9.) First, petitioner alleges his due process rights were violated but he was

28 given an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of reasons for why his parole was

1 denied. (Id. at 2.) Second, petitioner’s claim that he is not being adequately protected from the

2 coronavirus is not a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Id. at 2–3.) These findings and

3 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to

4 be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. To date, no party has filed

5 objections.

6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

7 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

8 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.

9 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner

10 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of

11 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El

12 v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003).

13 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of

14 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

15 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that

16 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

17 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve

18 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting

19 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

20 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial

21 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of

22 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not

23 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to

24 proceed further. Thus, the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

25 Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

26 1. The findings and recommendations, filed October 19, 2020 (Doc. No. 9), are

27 ADOPTED in full;

28 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED;

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

2 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the

3 purpose of closing the case and then to close the case.

4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a "

5 Li. wh F

Dated: _ January 8, 2021 Sea 1" S098

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.