(HC) Bennett v. Biden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 25, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00619
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:23-cv-00619-DAD-AC (HC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 JOE BIDEN, THIS ACTION 15 Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 10, 19) 16 17 18 Petitioner David Bennett is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 6, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be dismissed due to 23 petitioner’s failure to state a cognizable claim because “[t]he petition is largely unintelligible, but 24 it appears to allege a litany of constitutional rights violations and violations of the Americans with 25 Disabilities Act stemming from competency proceedings in petitioner’s criminal case.” (Doc. 26 No. 10 at 1.) The magistrate judge also recommended that the court decline to re-characterize the 27 petition as a civil rights complaint because of “the disadvantages that recharacterization may have 28 on petitioner’s claims, and petitioner’s references to another case he is pursuing in this court that 1 appears to address any claims that would give rise to a civil rights action.” (Id. at 4.) The 2 pending findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained notice that any 3 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) Petitioner 4 requested and received two lengthy extensions of time in which to file his objections to the 5 pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 15, 16.) Nonetheless, to date, 6 petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so has passed.1 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 8 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 9 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 11 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 12 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 13 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 14 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 15 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 16 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 17 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 18 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 19 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 20 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 21 would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 22 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 ///// 24 1 On March 20, 2024, petitioner filed a document captioned “motion for leave to amend the 25 complaint and objection to denying a stay,” though in that filing, petitioner also states that he does not object to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 19.) Moreover, 26 although in that filing petitioner purports to seek leave to file an amended complaint, he does not 27 include a copy of the proposed amended complaint or otherwise indicate what amendments he would make in an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court will deny petitioner’s pending 28 motion (Doc. No. 19) as having been rendered moot by this order. 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 6, 2023 (Doc. No. 10) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 5 3. Petitioner’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 19) is denied 6 as having been rendered moot by this order; 7 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 8 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 24, 2024 Dak A. 2, axel 11 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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