# (HC) Thomas, Jr. v. Sutton

> District Court, E.D. California · January 8, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10024518

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** January 8, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10024518

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10024518. Public record. Not legal advice.