Richard Coker v. Warden, USP-Atwater

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00224
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD COKER, No. 1:25-cv-00224 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 14 COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 15 WARDEN, USP-ATWATER, (Doc. 8) 16 Respondent.

17 18 Richard Coker is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus 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 The assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny the petition 22 on its merits.1 (Doc. 8). After receiving an extension of time (Doc. 10), Petitioner filed objections. 23 (Doc. 11). 24 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 25 case. In his objections, Petitioner argues error in finding he constructively possessed the 26 dangerous weapon found in the pocket of a coat hanging in the common area of his shared cell 27 1 The Court does not reach the motion to dismiss included with Respondent’s response to the § 28 2241 petition. (See Doc. 6.) 1 | because the Federal Bureau of Prisons Disciplinary Hearing Officer failed to consider his 2 | cellmate’s admission in the cellmate’s separate disciplinary proceeding, that “It’s mine. My cellie 3 | didn’t know about it.” (Doc. 11 at 2). 4 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 5 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. As discussed by the 6 | Magistrate Judge, the cellmate’s statement does not demonstrate that the BOP denied Petitioner 7 | due process. It is undisputed that the weapon was discovered in a common area of the cell, 8 | Petitioner was found guilty based on constructive possession. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, 9 | the “some evidence” standard may be satisfied by application of the constructive possession 10 | doctrine. See e.g., McCloud v. Lake, 2019 WL 283709, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019), aff'd, 787 11 | F. App'x 483 (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (collecting cases). 12 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required 13 | because this is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of 14 | arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th 15 | Cir. 1997). Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 29, 2025, (Doc. 8), are 17 ADOPTED in full. 18 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. 19 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | Dated: _November 1, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28