(HC) Arroyos v. U. S. Marshal, Fresno

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ALFRED ARROYOS, Case No. 1:22-cv-1503 JLT CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MOOTNESS, AND DIRECTING THE 15 Respondent. CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 16 (Doc. 7) 17 Alfred Arroyos, a state prisoner, seeks to proceed with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting the U.S. Marshal violated California Penal Code 19 1203.2(a), as well as the Equal Protection clauses of the constitutions of the United States and 20 State of California. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge performed a preliminary review pursuant to 21 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and ordered Petitioner to show cause why the 22 petition should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 5.) The U.S. Postal 23 Service returned the Court’s mail as “Undeliverable, Unable to Forward.” 24 The magistrate judge found Petitioner did not “provide an adequate petition for writ of 25 habeas corpus.” (Doc. 7 at 2.) As an initial matter, the magistrate judge determined Petitioner 26 failed “to name a proper respondent, [which] requires dismissal of his habeas corpus petition for 27 lack of jurisdiction.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge also found the claim raised was “not 28 cognizable in habeas” because Petitioner “does not challenge the fact or duration of his 1 confinement or seek either immediate release from that confinement or shortening of its 2 duration.” (Id., citing Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 354 (9th Cir. 2004); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 3 411 U.S. 475, 478 (1973).) Finally, the magistrate judge reviewed the Court’s records and found 4 Petitioner was “released from custody,” rendering the petition moot. (Id. at 3-4.) Therefore, the 5 magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and mootness. 6 (Id. at 4, citing Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 1997).) 7 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 8 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 7 at 4.) The Court advised Plaintiff that “failure 9 to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on 10 appeal.” (Id. at 5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did 11 not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 12 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 13 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 14 are supported by the record and proper analysis. 15 Additionally, the Court finds a certificate of appealability should not issue. “[A] state 16 prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s 17 denial of his application.” Miller-El v. Cockell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 of the 18 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability 19 when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability will issue 20 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 21 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing for claims rejected on procedural grounds, a movant 22 must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 23 claim of denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 24 the district was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 25 When a claim is rejected on the merits, the petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists 26 would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong” to 27 warrant a certificate of appealability. Because Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of 28 the denial of a constitutional right, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 1 | Thus, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 7, 2025 (Doc. 7) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice, 5 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as moot. 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. o | Dated: _ July 28, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28