1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, No. 1:24-cv-00134-KES-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 B. CATES, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. Doc. 11 16 17 Petitioner Alejandro Sanchez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 17, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition be dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition. Doc. 11. 22 The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 23 objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and 24 recommendations.

On May 8, 2024, petitioner filed timely objections. Doc. 12. 25 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 27 Court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 28 Petitioner’s objections argue that AEDPA’s bar on successive petitions should not apply under 1 the exception contained in

(b)(2)(B). Doc. 12 at 1–2. That provision allows a 2 prisoner to file a successive petition if (1) “the factual predicate for the claim could not have been 3 discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence”; and (2) “the facts underlying the 4 claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish 5 by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would 6 have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”

(b)(2)(B)(i)–(ii). 7 There are two problems with petitioner’s argument. First, he contends that he could not 8 have previously discovered the proffered Fourth Amendment claim, but he does not contend that 9 no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty without the supposed Fourth Amendment 10 violation. See Doc. 12 at 1–3. He therefore fails to satisfy the second prong of § 2244(b)(2)(B). 11 Second, the claim which he asserts could not have been discovered is a Fourth Amendment 12 unreasonable search claim, see id., and this claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review in 13 any event. Stone v. Powell,

(1976) (“Where [a] [s]tate has provided an 14 opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be 15 granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional 16 search or seizure was introduced at his trial.”). Therefore, the findings and recommendations are 17 correct that the petition should be dismissed as successive. 18 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 19 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 20 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 21 allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 23 the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists 24 of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 25 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 26 correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). “Where a plain 27 procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 28 reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 1 | that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Jd. 2 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 3 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 4 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 5 Accordingly: 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 17, 2024, Doc. 11, are adopted in 7 full; 8 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 10 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 11 12 13 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 14 Dated: _ December 12, 2024 4h 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28