(HC) Muhammad v. Matteson

Opinion

ASAD MUHAMMAD, No. 2:23-cv-02517-DC-DMC (HC) Petitioner, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING GISELLE MATTESON, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS PETITION Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11) Petitioner Asad Muhammad is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 August 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss the federal habeas petition (Doc. No. 10) be granted and this action be dismissed due to Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his habeas claims by first presenting them to the highest state court prior to seeking federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 11.) The pending findings and recommendations were served upon the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has passed. 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 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 aconstitutional 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 August 13, 2024 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted in full; 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 10) is granted; 3. This action is dismissed; 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. □ Dated: November 7, 2024 RY Os Dena Coggins United States District Judge