(HC) Barnes v. Starks Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, No. 2:25-cv-01129-DC-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 STARKS COMPANY, THIS ACTION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 4) 16 17 Petitioner Antoine Deshawn Barnes is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On May 1, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that this action be summarily dismissed because Petitioner “fails to state a 23 cognizable federal habeas claim;” rather, Petitioner seeks to sue the “Starks Company ‘Johnny 24 Depp’” for $800 trillion. (Doc. No. 4 at 2.) Because the petition in this action “does not raise any 25 issues concerning the conditions of his confinement in the Amador County Jail,” and Petitioner 26 has two other pending habeas actions in this court related to his current confinement, the 27 magistrate judge recommends the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without leave 28 to amend. (Id. at 3.) The findings and recommendations were served upon Petitioner and 1 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 2 service.1 (Id. at 4.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 5 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 7 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 8 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 9 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only 10 issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of 11 a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on 12 procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a 13 certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states 14 a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 15 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 16 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the 17 court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. 18 Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 1, 2025 (Doc. No. 4) are 21 ADOPTED in full; 22 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave 23 to amend; 24 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 25 ///// 26

27 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 28 deliverable as addressed, Unable to forward.” 1 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 4 | Dated: _ June 4, 2025 IYI os Dena Coggins 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28