(HC) Parker v. Napa Superior Court

Opinion

DEWAYNE PARKER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00367 JLT SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE NAPA SUPERIOR COURT, et al., (Doc. 14) Respondents. ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Dewayne Parker is a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See generally Doc. 10.) The magistrate judge preformed a preliminary review of the amended petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and determined the Court should abstain from the matter because Petitioner’s “state criminal proceedings are ongoing,” and the state “has an important interest in the matter.” (Doc. 12 at 2-3.) The magistrate judge also found that “[t]he trial court remains available as an adequate forum for Petitioner to seek relief.” (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the petition. (Id.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 14.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the only address on record. Although the U.S. Postal Service returned the mail as undeliverable, the Court’s service upon Plaintiff is deemed fully effective pursuant to Local Rule 182(f). According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (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 a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, Petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 27, 2025, (Doc. 14), are ADOPTED in full. 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. /// /// 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. This order terminates the action in its entirety. Dated: _ June 27, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE