Raymond George Glass v. James Hill, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAYMOND GEORGE GLASS, No. 2:24-cv-03020-DC-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING JAMES HILL, et al., CASE 15 Respondents. (Doc. Nos. 17, 23) 17 Petitioner Raymond George Glass is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On February 20, 2025, the magistrate judge issued an order for Petitioner to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). (Doc. No. 18.) On March 11, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for release. (Doc. No. 17.) On May 27, 2025, Petitioner filed a response to the magistrate judge’s order. (Doc. No. 21.)

25 On June 4, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.

27 (Doc. No. 23.) The magistrate also recommend Petitioner’s motion for release be denied in light of the court’s finding that his petition is barred by the statute of limitations. (Id. at 11.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 12.)

3 On June 20, 2025, Petitioner filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations.1 (Doc. No. 24.) Therein, Petitioner raises issues that were thoroughly addressed by the magistrate judge in the findings and recommendations. Accordingly, the court finds Petitioner’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.

8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

12 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

25 Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are dated June 11, 2025, and are timely under application of the mailbox rule. See Moore v. Schlichting, No. 20-cv-01672-DAD-EPG, 2021 WL 2802921, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2021) (finding plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations timely under the mailbox rule because it was dated within the time to file objections).

1 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 4, 2025 (Doc. No. 23) are 2 ADOPTED in full; 3 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice as 4 barred by the statute of limitations; 5 3. Petitioner’s motion for release (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED; 6 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 7 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ | Dated: _ December 30, 2025 22 cs Dena Coggins 12 United States District Judge