1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH BONDERER, No. 2:20-cv-00415 DC-AC (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GENA JONES, (Doc. Nos. 35, 40) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Joseph Bonderer, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to

. In his petition, Petitioner first claims that his Due 19 Process rights were violated by the “wrongful admission of an unfairly suggestive and unreliable 20 single photo identification of him by [the victim] which tainted her in court identification of him . 21 . .” (Doc. No. 1 at 32.) Petitioner also claims the warrantless seizure of his DNA following his 22 arrest was in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.1 (Id. at 40.) The matter was referred to a 23 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On October 9, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 25 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. No. 35.) Specifically, 26 the magistrate judge found that relief was unavailable on Petitioner’s first claim “[b]ecause the 27 1 This case proceeded on Petitioner’s first and second claims only, after he voluntarily dismissed 28 his third through fifth claims. (Doc. Nos. 18, 20.) 1 state court’s judgment did not rely on any objectively unreasonable findings of fact or objectively 2 unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.” (Id. at 11.) The magistrate judge also 3 found Petitioner’s second claim was non-cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding because 4 Petitioner “had a full and fair opportunity in state court to seek a remedy for any and all Fourth 5 Amendment violations.” (Id. at 11–12.) 6 The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 7 any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. (Id. 8 at 5.) After receiving an extension of time, on November 6, 2024, Petitioner timely filed 9 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 39.) On April 7, 2025, Petitioner filed 10 a request for the court to review pretrial transcripts and court documents related to his state court 11 conviction. (Doc. No. 40.) 12 In his objections, Petitioner argues the magistrate judge’s recommendation that his first 13 claim be denied is contrary to Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. (Doc. No. 39 at 1.) 14 Petitioner does not address the magistrate judge’s recommendation as to his second claim. (Id.) 15 On April 7, 2025, Petitioner also filed a request for the court to review pretrial transcripts and 16 court records concerning “the DNA evidence” in his case. (Doc. No. 40.) The court reviewed 17 Petitioner’s objections and finds they do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and 18 recommendations. 19 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 20 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 21 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 22 analysis. 23 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 24 a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 25 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed 26 only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335–36 (2003);

2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of 28 appealability only if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 1 | petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 2 | to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

(citing Slack v. 3 | McDaniel,

(2000)). The petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his 4 | case, but he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of 5 | mere good faith on his or her part.” Miller-El,

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 6 | U.S. 880, 893 (1983)) Gnternal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, when the court denies 7 | habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching an underlying constitutional claim, a court 8 || should issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 9 | petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 10 | find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack,

| 484. 12 In the present case, the court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 13 | determination that the petition should be denied to be debatable or wrong, or that the issues 14 | presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a 15 | certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 9, 2024 (Doc. No. 35) are 18 ADOPTED in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED; 20 3. Petitioner’s request that the court review the pretrial transcripts and court records 21 of this case (Doc. No. 40) is GRANTED; 22 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 23 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ | Dated: _ September 29, 2025 RY os Dena Coggins 27 United States District Judge 28