(HC) Abramian v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARNO ABRAMIAN, No. 1:25-cv-00320-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE A 14 v. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER 15 JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

16 Doc. 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner Arno Abramian is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred 22 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On March 20, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Doc. 4. Those findings and recommendations 25 were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed 26 within twenty-one (21) days after service. No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do 27 so has expired. 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 1 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings 2 and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The magistrate judge 3 correctly construed the petition as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than § 2241, 4 because petitioner is challenging his sentence, rather than the “manner, location, or conditions of 5 that sentence’s execution.” Doc. 4 at 3, 5. “If [a § 2241] petition is a disguised § 2255 motion, 6 [an appeals court] lacks jurisdiction to hear it absent a” certificate of appealability. Harrison v. 7 Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2008); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). The magistrate judge 8 also correctly found that petitioner had failed to establish a basis for jurisdiction under § 2241 9 pursuant to the “savings clause” of § 2255. 10 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 11 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. 12 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the Court 13 denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, 14 the Court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable 15 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 16 reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 17 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the 18 district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude 19 either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be 20 allowed to proceed further.” Id. 21 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 22 determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the petition deserves 23 encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the 24 denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 20, 2025, Doc. 4, are adopted 3 in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 6 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 8 g | SO ORDERED. _ 10 Dated: _ April 30, 2025 4h : UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28