Opinion

(HC) Calderon v. Board of Parole Hearings of CA

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Mar 5, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.3%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, No. 2:23-cv-02554-DAD-CKD (PC)

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARILY

14 BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, DISMISSING PETITION

CALIFORNIA,

15 (Doc. Nos. 1, 6)

Respondent.

16

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an application

18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United

19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On May 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge reviewed the pending petition and issued

21 findings and recommendations recommending that it be summarily dismissed because it failed to

22 state any cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 6.) Specifically, the magistrate

23 judge concluded that petitioner’s claims all focused on his challenges to state parole denials or the

24 representation he received in connection with his state parole hearings and failed to state any

25 arguable claim for relief under § 2254. (Id. at 1–2.)

26 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

27 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at

28 3.) Petitioner filed two documents with the court on June 10, 2024 (Doc. Nos. 7 & 8), which the

1 court construes as his objections to the findings and recommendations. In his objections

2 petitioner complains generally of the conditions of his confinement in state prison and his lack of

3 legal knowledge or assistance in that regard. (Id.) Those objections, however, provide no basis

4 upon which to question the analysis set forth in the pending findings and recommendations.

5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

6 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

7 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported

8 by the record and by proper analysis.

9 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking a

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

11 and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–

12 36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only

13 issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s

14 resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues

15 presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327;

16 see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to

17 prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity

18 or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. In the present

19 case, the court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the

20 petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of

21 encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of

22 the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court will decline to issue a certificate of

23 appealability.

24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 6) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

26 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is summarily

27 DISMISSED;

28 /////

1 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.

2 § 2253; and

3 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

> | Dated: _ March 4, 2025 Dab A. 2, sxe

6 DALE A. DROZD

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.