Jeff Lamonte Sigler v. Josh Prudhel

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEFF LAMONTE SIGLER, No. 2:24-cv-01840-DC-AC (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JOSH PRUDHEL, (Doc. No. 15) 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner Jeff Lamonte Sigler, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21 On January 15, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc. No. 15.) On February 4, 2025, Petitioner filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations.1 (Doc.

25 No. 16.) The court reviewed Petitioner’s objections and finds they do not provide a basis upon 1 The Clerk of the Court filed the objections on Petitioner’s behalf on February 10, 2025. (Doc.

No. 16.) Petitioner signed the filing on February 4, 2025, and pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, that is the effective date of filing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

1 which to reject the findings and recommendations.

2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

6 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 10 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). The petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, but he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his or her part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 328 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 17 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, when the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching an underlying constitutional claim, a 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, 529 U.S. at 22 484.

23 In the present case, the court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should be denied to be debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The findings and recommendations filed on January 15, 2025 (Doc. No. 15) are 1 ADOPTED in full; 2 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED; 3 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 4 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ g | Dated: _ December 31, 2025 EIU os Dena Coggins 9 United States District Judge