(HC) Barnes v. Starks Company

Opinion

ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, No. 2:25-cv-01129-DC-CSK (HC) Petitioner, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING Respondent. (Doc. No. 4) Petitioner Antoine Deshawn Barnes is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 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 May 1, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be summarily dismissed because Petitioner “fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim;” rather, Petitioner seeks to sue the “Starks Company ‘Johnny Depp’” for $800 trillion. (Doc. No. 4 at 2.) Because the petition in this action “does not raise any issues concerning the conditions of his confinement in the Amador County Jail,” and Petitioner has two other pending habeas actions in this court related to his current confinement, the magistrate judge recommends the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without leave to amend. (Id. at 3.) The findings and recommendations were served upon Petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service.1 (Id. at 4.) 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, the court concludes that the pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking 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. Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 1, 2025 (Doc. No. 4) are ADOPTED in full; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and /////

1 The service copy of the pending findings and recommendations, which was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record, was returned to the court as “Undeliverable, Not in custody, Not deliverable as addressed, Unable to forward.” 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. □ Dated: _ June 4, 2025 IYI os Dena Coggins United States District Judge