1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERBERT DEON GOODWIN, JR. Case No. 1:22-cv-00298-JLT-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE 15 Respondent. OF APPEALABILITY

16 (Doc. 28)

17 Herbert Deon Goodwin, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with his amended petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. (Doc. 11). The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 16, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations 21 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as without merit, and that the 22 court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 28). Those Findings and 23 Recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 24 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. In addition, the parties were “advised that 25 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 26 (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). After receiving a requested extension, Petitioner filed objections on June 16, 2025. (Doc. 31). 1 Petitioner’s objections largely reiterate arguments he raised in support of the petition, 2 including that the state court decision rejecting confrontation claim was contrary to Hammon v. 3 Indiana,

(2006); there is an independent right to confront witnesses under the 4 Fourteenth Amendment; and there was insufficient evidence to support that one of the victims 5 was a minor. (Doc. 31 at 6-8). Petitioner also argues the magistrate judge did not apply the 6 correct standard for a certificate of appealability and a certificate is warranted in this case. (Id. at 7 8-9). 8 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 10 objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 11 proper analysis.1 12 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court now turns to whether a 13 certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 14 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 15 allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 17 appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 18 petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 19 to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; Slack v. McDaniel, 529

, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 21 demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 22 his . . . part.” Miller-El,

. 23 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 24 petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed 25

26 1 Even were Mr. Goodwin to be correct that the drivers’ license may have contained false information as to A.J.’s age, there was other evidence from the social worker that A.J. was a minor. (Doc. 17-4 at 306) On the other had, the 27 Court observes also that, the social worker also identified A.J. as a person she was working with and that she worked with “wards of the court” and the the “court” had given her limited authority to speak about A.J. (Doc. 17-4 at 306) 1 | further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 2 | right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Based upon the 3 | foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 16, 2025 (Doc. 28) are 5 ADOPTED in full. 6 2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 11) is DENIED. 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 8 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: _ July 29, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28