(HC) Sigler v. Prudhel

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEFF LAMONTE SIGLER,
Petitioner,
v.
JOSH PRUDHEL,
Respondent.
No. 2:24-cv-01840-DC-AC (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 15)
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.
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.
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).
Case 2:24-cv-01840-DC-AC Document 18 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
which to reject the findings and recommendations.
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.
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. §
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
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
484.
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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed on January 15, 2025 (Doc. No. 15) are
Case 2:24-cv-01840-DC-AC Document 18 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
ADOPTED in full;
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED;
3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 31, 2025	___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-01840-DC-AC Document 18 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3