1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRENCE BROWNLEE, No. 1:23-cv-01013-KES-EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 LUIS MARTINEZ, HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND 15 Respondent. DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (Docs. 20, 26) 17 18 Petitioner Terrence Brownlee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 19 of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 5, 2023,1 the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and the petition 23 be dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition. Doc. 26. The findings and 24 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 25 filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and recommendations.

On 26 December 15, 2023, petitioner filed timely objections. Doc. 27. 27 ///

28 1 The findings and recommendations were signed on December 4, 2023, but not docketed until December 5, 2023. 1 In the objections, “Petitioner contends this petition has nothing to due [sic] with a second 2 or successive petition, Petitioner went to the Board in [sic] Feb 4, 2021, and the claims in his 3 petition are new.” Doc. 27 at 1–2. However, the petition does not mention the parole board 4 proceeding at all. Rather, petitioner argued that his “plea bargain criminal record and transcripts 5 [were] material and its nondisclosure required a new trial,” Doc. 1-1 at 1, which challenges the 6 validity of petitioner’s underlying criminal conviction rather than any parole board proceeding. 7 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the court has conducted a de 8 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 9 court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 11 a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 12 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed 13 only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 14 § 2253. The court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 15 whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 16 manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 17 further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 19 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 20 determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable, wrong, or deserving of 21 encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of 22 appealability. 23 Accordingly: 24 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 5, 2023, Doc. 26, are adopted 25 in full; 26 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 20, is granted; 27 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 28 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 1 5. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 3 4 | ISSO ORDERED. _ 5 Dated: _ September 30, 2024 4h ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28