(HC) Stuart v. St. Andre

Opinion

ANTHONY D. STUART, No. 2:22-cv-02298-DAD-AC (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION ROB ST. ANDRE, Warden, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF Respondent. APPEALABILITY (Doc. Nos. 1, 11, 18) Petitioner Anthony D. Stuart is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a 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 March 1, 2023, respondent moved to dismiss the pending petition as premature pursuant to the decision in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 27 (1971) because appellate proceedings in state court were ongoing and his judgment of conviction was not yet final. (Doc. No. 11.) On October 2, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss the pending petition on Younger abstention grounds be granted without prejudice. (Doc. No. 18.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that because petitioner’s appeal from his underlying state criminal conviction was still pending when he filed the pending petition for federal habeas relief, application of the Younger abstention doctrine required dismissal of this federal habeas action without prejudice. (Id.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 5.) To date, no objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss the pending petition without prejudice will be granted. Additionally, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking a 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). Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). The court will 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). Here, reasonable jurists would not find the court’s decision to dismiss the petition to be debatable or conclude that the petition should proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 2, 2023 (Doc. No. 18) are adopted in full; 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the pending petition (Doc. No. 11) is granted; 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed, without prejudice; 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. * | Dated: December 8, 2023 Dab A. 2, oyel ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE