(HC) Nelson v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 8, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01476
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUFUS LOU NELSON JR., No. 1:23-cv-01476-WBS-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 8) 16 17 18 Rufus Lou Nelson Jr. (“Petitioner”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 7, 2023,1 the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 23 (ECF No. 8.) On January 8, 2024, Petitioner filed objections. (ECF No. 9.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 26 objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 27 proper analysis.

28 1 The findings and recommendations were signed on December 6, 2023, but not docketed until December 7, 2023. 1 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 2 | whether a certificate of appealability (“COA”) should issue. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 3 | 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Where a petition purportedly brought under § 2241 is merely a 4 | ‘disguised’ § 2255 motion, the petitioner cannot appeal from the denial of that petition without a 5 | COA.”). A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 6 || district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. See 7 | Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To obtain a certificate of 8 || appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner “must make a substantial showing of the 9 | denial of a constitutional right, . . . includ[ing] showing that reasonable jurists could debate 10 | whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 11 || manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 12 | further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 US. 13 | 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 14 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 15 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should 16 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 7, 2023 (ECF No. 8) are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 22 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 Dated: April 5, 2024 / 7 - 24 at en Vin (i 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28