(HC) Laster v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 LEVI DALE LASTER, JR. No. 2:25-CV-00440-DC-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 27) 16 17 Petitioner Levi Dale Laster, Jr. is a county jail pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This 19 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. 21 On March 20, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending Petitioner’s third amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without 23 prejudice based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (Doc. No. 27.) The findings and 24 recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were 25 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) 26 On March 24, 2025, Petitioner filed objections to the pending findings and 27 recommendations. (Doc. No. 29.) Petitioner filed supplemental briefing in support of his petition 28 and a motion to be released into the President’s custody. (Doc. Nos. 28, 30–31.) In his objections, 1 Petitioner does not respond to the magistrate’s judge’s recommendation that this case should be 2 dismissed based on Younger abstention. (Doc. No. 29.) Instead, Petitioner asks the court to 3 intervene in his pending state court criminal case. (Id.) Accordingly, the court finds Petitioner’s 4 objections and additional filings provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 5 recommendations. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 7 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 8 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 9 record and by 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 a 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 Accordingly, 24 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 20, 2025 (Doc. No. 27) are 25 ADOPTED in full; 26 2. The third amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 25) is dismissed 27 without prejudice; 28 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; 1 4. Petitioner’s motion for release into the President’s custody (Doc. No. 28) is 2 DENIED as moot; and 3 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ + | Dated: _ April 10, 2025 LY os Dena Coggins 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28