Richard Coker v. Warden, USP-Atwater

Opinion

RICHARD COKER, No. 1:25-cv-00224 JLT SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE (Doc. 8) Respondent.

Richard Coker is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny the petition on its merits.1 (Doc. 8). After receiving an extension of time (Doc. 10), Petitioner filed objections. (Doc. 11). According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. In his objections, Petitioner argues error in finding he constructively possessed the dangerous weapon found in the pocket of a coat hanging in the common area of his shared cell 1 The Court does not reach the motion to dismiss included with Respondent’s response to the § 2241 petition. (See Doc. 6.) because the Federal Bureau of Prisons Disciplinary Hearing Officer failed to consider his cellmate’s admission in the cellmate’s separate disciplinary proceeding, that “It’s mine. My cellie didn’t know about it.” (Doc. 11 at 2). Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, the cellmate’s statement does not demonstrate that the BOP denied Petitioner due process. It is undisputed that the weapon was discovered in a common area of the cell, Petitioner was found guilty based on constructive possession. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the “some evidence” standard may be satisfied by application of the constructive possession doctrine. See e.g., McCloud v. Lake, 2019 WL 283709, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019), aff'd, 787 F. App'x 483 (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (collecting cases). In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required because this is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997). Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 29, 2025, (Doc. 8), are ADOPTED in full. 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _November 1, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE