(HC) Cornejo v. Pfeiffer

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSE CORNEJO, No. 2:20-cv-1125 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner paid the filing fee.

19 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review.

22 Court records reveal that petitioner has previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. See Cornejo v. Pfeifer, No. 2:18-cv-0572 JKS P. Before petitioner can proceed with the instant successive petition, he must obtain authorization from United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 26 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Because it does not appear that petitioner has obtained the required authorization, petitioner’s habeas petition must be dismissed.

28 ///// MAS 2 EUV VEEN INEZ MVE OO Ie OY eve 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court | assign a district court judge to this case.

3 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed; and 5 2. This case be closed.

6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written | objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections, petitioner may address whether a | certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this | case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or | deny acertificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as | here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should | issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the | district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it || debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris | v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 | (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive | the nght to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

21 |) Dated: June 5, 2020 i; dp. | bie 2 CAROLYN K DELANEY 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | 101 com1125.suc