1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALE WILLIAM WATSON, No. 1:24-cv-00567-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE, DECLINING 14 v. TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING 15 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 16 STEPHEN SMITH, Warden, (Doc. 13) 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner Dale William Watson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was 22 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 23 302. 24 On August 22, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 25 to deny the petition on its merits. Doc. 13. Those findings and recommendations were served 26 upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) 27 days after service. On September 26, 2024, petitioner filed objections to the findings and 28 recommendations. Doc. 14. 1 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 3 objections, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 4 record and proper analysis. 5 In his objections, petitioner acknowledges that under Knowles v. Mirzayance,

(2009), a state court does not fail to apply “clearly established Federal law[] as 7 determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” when there is no Supreme Court decision 8 governing an issue. See Doc. 14 at 1. Petitioner argues that Strickland v. Washington,

668 (1984), set out clearly established law that the state court should have applied in resolving his 10 first claim. Petitioner’s first claim challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s 11 finding that he was competent to stand trial under the Due Process clause. Doc. 1 at 5. 12 Strickland, in contrast, set out the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth 13 Amendment; it had nothing to do with sufficiency of the evidence to find a defendant competent 14 to stand trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 671–700. This objection is therefore without merit. 15 Petitioner’s remaining objections repeat arguments he made in his petition, each of which was 16 correctly addressed by the findings and recommendations. 17 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 18 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 19 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 20 allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). If a 21 court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if 22 jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional 23 claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 24 proceed further.” Miller-El,

; Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While 25 the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 26 than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El,

. 28 ene ene ne II EO III I RI IIE I IIE IGE IIE

1 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 2 | determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are 3 | deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial 4 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 5 | appealability. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 22, 2024, Doc. 13, are 8 adopted in full; 9 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied with prejudice; 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 11 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 12 13 14 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 15 Dated: _ March 19, 2025 4A . 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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