(HC) Trammell v. City of San Francisco

Opinion

NICHOLAS KENNETH TRAMMELL, Case No. 1:21-cv-00178-NONE-HBK Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO Respondent. ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND TO (Doc. No. 12) Petitioner Nicholas Kenneth Trammell is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, the instant federal habeas petition was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. On March 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed “because it raises claims relating to petitioner’s conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of his confinement, and is duplicative of his earlier-filed case.” (Doc. No. 12 at 3.) To date, no objections have been filed to those findings and recommendations, and the time to do so has passed. ///// The undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Based upon that review, the undersigned finds the pending findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the findings and recommendations will be adopted in full. The court must now turn to whether a certificate of appealability should be issued. A petitioner 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, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Courts should issue a certificate of appealability only if “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 n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 12) are adopted in full; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ April 15, 2021 Yole A Lara UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE