(HC) Harris v. Butte County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE EDWARD HARRIS, No. 2:24-cv-01612-DAD-CSK 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 BUTTE COUNTY, HABEAS PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 4) 16 17 18 Petitioner Clarence Edward Harris is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The 20 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On June 12, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for failing to state a cognizable claim for 24 federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 4.) Specifically, the findings and recommendations concluded 25 that the petition did not state a cognizable claim under § 2254 because petitioner is not in custody. 26 (Id. at 3–4.) 27 Those findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that 28 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id.) 1 To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in 2 which to do so has now passed. 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 10 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 11 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 12 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 13 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 14 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 15 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 16 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 17 would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 18 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 4) are 21 adopted; 22 2. The operative petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed, with 23 prejudice; 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 2 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ Dated: _ December 6, 2024 Dal A. 2, sy 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28