1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G. MEMO VERA, Case No. 1:24-cv-1045 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, v. AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 14 ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 5th APPELLATE DISTRICT, 15 (Doc. 5) Respondent. 16 ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 18 G. Memo Vera is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, asserting he is indigent and “entitle[d] to 20 free copies to further his Appeal.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) The magistrate judge performed a preliminary 21 review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. (Doc. 5.) 22 The magistrate judge found Petitioner failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief, 23 because his request for “this Court’s intervention to obtain documents from the Tulare County 24 District Attorney’s Office, the Tulare County Public Defender’s Office, or the California Court of 25 Appeal, Fifth Appellate District ... do[es] not involve the underlying conviction.” (Doc. 5 at 2.) 26 The Court explained it does not have a “supervisory role overseeing discovery and document 27 production in state court cases,” and Petitioner must seek relief for his claim in the state court. 28 (Id.) In addition, the magistrate judge found the Court should not recharacterize the petition to an 1 action under

, because “Petitioner does not name proper defendants and the 2 claims are not amenable to conversion on their face.” (Id.) Finally, to the extent Petitioner 3 sought to challenge his 1997 conviction, the magistrate judge found this petition is successive, 4 because Petitioner sought federal habeas relief with respect to the conviction in Vera v. Ryan, 5 Case No. 1:04-cv-06349-OWW-TAG. (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended 6 the Court dismiss the petition. (Id. at 4.) 7 Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, arguing he is entitled to 8 habeas relief regarding the requested discovery and copies. (Doc. 13.) Petitioner also asserts he 9 is suffering a violation of his constitutional rights to due process, and this petition is based upon a 10 ruling of a state court denying his motion for discovery. (Id. at 2-3.) He contends this court has 11 jurisdiction to set aside the state court’s ruling, referencing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 12 Federal Rules of Evidence, and rules governing multi-district litigation. (Id. at 3-6.) Further, 13 Petitioner clarifies this he did not intend this action to be a successive petition. (Id. at 2.) 14 Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, this Court lacks jurisdiction to address the ruling of a 15 state court concerning the denial of discovery or requested copies. As the magistrate judge 16 determined, this Court does not have a supervisory rule over state courts. Rather, the federal 17 courts have limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

, 377 18 (1994). Moreover, if the matter were converted to a civil rights action, the claim would be barred 19 under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars “cases brought by state-court losers complaining 20 of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings 21 commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil 22 Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,

(2005); see also Herman v. Los Angels Sup. 23 Ct.,

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2022) (the Rooker-Feldman bar cannot be 24 avoided “by styling [an] attack on the state court’s ruling as a civil rights action”). 25 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 26 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 27 are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the Court declines to issue a 28 certificate of appealability. 1 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 2 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 3 Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). The controlling statute in determining 4 whether to issue a certificate of appealability is

, which provides as follows:

5 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 6 appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

7 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 8 trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 9 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 10 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

11 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 12 court; or

13 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

14 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 15 right.

16 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 17 18 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the Court may only issue a certificate of 19 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 20

(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, Petitioner must establish that 21 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 22 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 23 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting 24 Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1983)). In the present case, the Court finds Petitioner did 25 not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the 26 issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the determination that 27 Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of 28 encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 1 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 10, 2024 (Doc. 5), are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 6 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 7 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: _ January 23, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28