Dews v. Kern Valley State Prison et al
Filing
22
ORDER Discharging Order To Show Cause (Doc. 8 ), FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS To Dismiss The Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Without Leave To Amend (Doc. 1 ), FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS To Dismiss All Pending Motions As Moot (Docs. 3 , 11 , 14 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 ), FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS To Decline To Issue A Certificate Of Appealability And To Direct The Clerk To Send Petitioner A Complaint Form And To Close The Action, Objections Deadline: Thirty (30) Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/19/2012. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. (Objections to F&R due by 7/23/2012) (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
CLARENCE LEON DEWS,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et. )
al.,
)
Respondents.
)
)
)
16
1:12-cv—00450-AWI-SKO-HC
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE (DOC. 8)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND (DOC. 1)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS ALL PENDING MOTIONS AS
MOOT (DOCS. 3, 11, 14, 16, 19,
20, 21)
17
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DECLINE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY AND TO DIRECT THE
CLERK TO SEND PETITIONER A
COMPLAINT FORM AND TO CLOSE THE
ACTION
18
19
20
21
OBJECTIONS DEADLINE:
THIRTY (30) DAYS
22
23
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
24
forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
25
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
26
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules
27
302 through 304.
28
petition, which was filed on March 12, 2012, and transferred to
The matter has been referred to the
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s
1
1
this Court on March 22, 2012.
2
I.
3
On April 3, 2012, the Court issued to Petitioner an order to
Discharge of the Order to Show Cause
4
show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure
5
to exhaust state court remedies as to his claims.
6
7
Because Petitioner responded to the order to show cause, the
order to show cause issued on April 3, 2012, is DISCHARGED.
8
II.
9
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
Screening the Petition
10
States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make
11
a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.
12
The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly
13
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
14
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”
15
Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.
16
1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.
17
1990).
18
grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts
19
supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested.
20
Notice pleading is not sufficient; the petition must state facts
21
that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.
22
4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; O’Bremski v. Maass,
23
915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75
24
n. 7 (1977)).
25
conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary
26
dismissal.
27
28
Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all
Rule
Allegations in a petition that are vague,
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 491.
The Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus
either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the
2
1
respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the
2
petition has been filed.
3
8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43
4
(9th Cir. 2001).
5
Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule
Petitioner alleges that he is an inmate of the Kern Valley
6
State Prison (KVSP) in Delano, California, located in the Eastern
7
District of California.
Petitioner names the warden of the
8
prison as a Respondent.
Petitioner challenges his conviction of
9
receiving stolen property in the Superior Court of the State of
10
California, County of Fresno, for which he was sentenced on
11
October 12, 2011.
12
following claims in the petition: 1) the courts must not keep
13
stating that counsel for an indigent defendant must receive
14
transcripts of the trial proceedings because pursuant to the
15
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, the accused shall be informed of
16
the nature and cause of the accusation, be confronted with the
17
witnesses against him, and have compulsory process; 2) an
18
indigent defendant must be allowed a right to a transcript
19
pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and due process of
20
law; 3) the order issued by the Eastern District Court on
21
February 9, 2012, directed the clerk to close the case, which
22
denied Petitioner the right to redress the court under the First
23
Amendment; 4) under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, the
24
accused has an independent right to a reporter’s transcript of
25
criminal trial proceedings, and rights to be informed of the
26
charges, confront witnesses against him, compulsory process for
27
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and the assistance of counsel
28
in his defense; and 5) a claim set forth verbatim as follows:
(Pet., doc. 1, 2.)
3
Petitioner raises the
1
2
3
4
“There are ‘the right to study, to confront, to
re-examine or to examine, to have the accusation
of the cause of the nature of why there is witnesses
against, this duty to and indigent defender is compelled
by the 5th, 6th, 14th, to have theses (sic) rights by
the Constitution of the people of the United Constitutional
Amendment. Your honor, this is a constitutional right;
it must be protected, it must not be denied a defendant....”
5
(Id. at 5-6.)
6
III.
Background
7
The Court takes judicial notice of an opinion filed on May
8
9, 2012, in People v. Clarence Leon Dews, case number F061339, in
9
the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate
10
District (CCA).1
This decision is the opinion on direct appeal
11
from the judgment rendered in Fresno County Superior Court case
12
number F09906781, the judgment to which Petitioner’s claims
13
relate.
14
The opinion summarizes the evidence introduced at
15
Petitioner’s trial, which resulted in his conviction of receiving
16
stolen property in violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 496(a) on
17
December 1, 2009, with a prior “strike” conviction within the
18
meaning of Cal. Pen. Code § 667(b)-(i), a prior serious felony
19
conviction within the meaning of Cal. Pen. Code § 667(a)(1), and
20
nine prior prison term enhancements within the meaning of Cal.
21
Pen. Code § 667.5(b).
Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of
accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned, including undisputed information posted on official
web sites. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331,
333 (9th Cir. 1993); Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d
992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). It is appropriate to take judicial notice of the
docket sheet of a California court. White v Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 885 (9th
Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 332 (2010). The address of the official
website of the California state courts is www.courts.ca.gov. The Court
further notes that the unpublished opinion of the CCA appears at 2012 WL
1623421 (no. F061339, May 9, 2012).
4
1
in prison.
(Op. at 1-2.)
2
With respect to the facts relating to Petitioner’s receipt
3
of stolen property, Gerald McCarter discovered that the door of
4
his house on West Belmont had been forced open and the interior
5
ransacked; some of the personal property from the residence was
6
missing, and some had been moved and stacked by the front door as
7
if someone were going to return and remove the items.
8
departed after waiting unsuccessfully for about four hours for
9
the perpetrators.
McCarter
He returned at about 10:30 p.m. and observed
10
that the front door and screen were open, and a car was parked on
11
the street in front of the house.
12
entered the house and discovered Petitioner’s brother, Archie,
13
going through some electrical equipment in the living room.
14
Archie failed to respond to McCarter’s inquiries, McCarter fired
15
a warning shot.
16
Petitioner and Archie were detained and arrested by law
17
enforcement officers, who were called to the scene.
18
Petitioner incident to arrest yielded distinctive items which
19
McCarter identified as having been removed from the house and
20
having belonged to his late father, a previous resident.
21
testified, admitting that he had told a deputy that he had been
22
looking for things in the house that he could recycle for a few
23
dollars, and that a friend had told him that the house contained
24
a lot of stuff, including some pretty good fishing poles.
25
at 6-11.)
26
Armed with a handgun, McCarter
When
Petitioner emerged from a back bedroom.
A search of
Archie
(Id.
The only issues raised in the appeal concerned the propriety
27
of the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s second motion to
28
represent himself, which was made in conjunction with a motion to
5
1
discharge Petitioner’s appointed trial counsel a few days before
2
Petitioner’s trial was scheduled to begin.
3
judgment, concluding that the trial court had properly found that
4
when Petitioner had previously represented himself, his tactics,
5
including refiling motions and seeking repeated continuances,
6
were obstreperous, and Petitioner’s renewed motion to represent
7
himself made on the eve of trial was undertaken for the purpose
8
of obstruction or delay.
9
The CCA affirmed the
(Id. at 11-31.)
The docket and records reflect that in Petitioner’s direct
10
appeal, Petitioner was represented by appointed appellate
11
counsel, who on multiple occasions procured augmentations of the
12
record, filed opening and reply briefs, and waived oral argument.
13
A clerk’s transcript and a reporter’s transcript of 1156 pages
14
were also filed on February 9, 2011.
15
Petitioner’s allegations in his petition for writ of habeas
16
corpus filed in the California Supreme Court and correspondence
17
with his counsel on appeal reveal that Petitioner requested from
18
the trial court his own copy of the transcripts.
19
denied Petitioner’s request because Petitioner's appellate
20
counsel would obtain the transcripts and provide them to
21
Petitioner.
22
The trial court
(Doc. 1-1, 5-8, 16.)
Appellate counsel declined to forward the transcripts to
23
Petitioner, stating that Petitioner would not serve as counsel’s
24
advisor during the appeal; rather, counsel would determine
25
whether legal advice or research was needed.
26
The CCA denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus,
27
noting in part that Petitioner had appellate counsel, who was
28
sent the record on appeal; further, Petitioner had not shown that
6
(Id. at 9, 28-29.)
1
the appellate process was an inadequate remedy.
2
The Supreme Court summarily denied a petition for writ of habeas
3
corpus regarding the transcript issue.
(Id. at 25.)
(Doc. 1, 35.)
4
IV.
5
Petitioner alleges that when this Court dismissed
Alleged First Amendment Violation
6
Petitioner’s previous habeas corpus petition, it violated his
7
First Amendment right to petition the government peaceably for a
8
redress of grievances.
9
(Doc. 1, 6.)
Petitioner cites to Clarence Leon Dews v. Superior Court of
10
State of California, case number 1:11-cv-02050-BAM-HC, filed in
11
this Court and subsequently terminated by the entry of a judgment
12
of dismissal.
13
orders in that case, in which the Court dismissed the petition
14
because Petitioner’s first amended petition (doc. 11), filed on
15
January 6, 2012, concerned only conditions of confinement,
16
namely, interference with Petitioner’s practice of his religion.
17
Thus, by order signed on February 9, 2012, and judgment entered
18
on February 10, 2012, the petition was dismissed for failure to
19
allege facts that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus
20
relief.
21
petition the government for redress of grievances was violated by
22
this dismissal of his complaint concerning religious liberty
23
relates not to the legality or duration of his confinement, but
24
rather to the conditions of his confinement.
25
The Court takes judicial notice of the docket and
(Doc. 16, 2; 17.)
Petitioner's claim that his right to
Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the
26
effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
27
Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies to the petition.
28
Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d
7
Lindh v.
1
2
1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997).
A federal court may only grant a state prisoner’s petition
3
for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is
4
in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
5
of the United States."
6
petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the
7
legality or duration of his confinement.
8
573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
9
475, 485 (1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 1, 1976
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
A habeas corpus
Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d
10
Adoption.
11
U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge
12
the conditions of that confinement.
13
U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931
14
F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 1, 1976
15
Adoption.
16
In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42
McCarthy v. Bronson, 500
Petitioner’s complaint that his First Amendment rights were
17
violated by the dismissal of his previous habeas petition relates
18
to his exercise of First Amendment rights.
19
the validity of his conviction or sentence, and thus it does not
20
relate to the legality or duration of his confinement.
21
Petitioner is not challenging a conviction or sentence; rather,
22
he is challenging the conditions of his confinement. Therefore,
23
with respect to his First Amendment claim, Petitioner is not
24
entitled to habeas corpus relief, and his claim must be
25
dismissed.
26
It does not bear upon
Because the defect in the claim relates not to any
27
inadequacy of factual allegations, but rather to the nature of
28
the claim itself as one concerning conditions of confinement,
8
1
Petitioner could not state a tenable habeas claim for First
2
Amendment relief if leave to amend were granted.
3
therefore, be recommended that the claim be dismissed without
4
leave to amend.
5
It will,
Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claim, he must do so by
6
way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
7
The Clerk should be directed to send an appropriate form
8
complaint to Petitioner.
9
V.
Petitioner’s Claims concerning Petitioner’s Right
to a Transcript of His Trial Proceedings
10
In his remaining claims, Petitioner cites numerous rights of
11
an accused in connection with criminal trial proceedings.
(Doc.
12
1, 5-6.)
However, Petitioner appears to assert essentially one
13
claim: his rights to due process and equal protection of the law
14
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the state
15
courts’ decisions denying his requests for a personal copy of his
16
transcript for use during his direct appeal while he was being
17
represented by counsel who had possession of the record on
18
appeal, including the transcripts, and who filed briefs on the
19
merits in the appellate proceedings.
20
To the extent Petitioner refers to his rights to notice of
21
the charges against him, confrontation of witnesses, access to
22
compulsory process, and the assistance of counsel, he appears to
23
contend that the right to a transcript is part and parcel of, or
24
effectuates, those trial rights.
Petitioner does not appear to
25
raise claims directly with respect to these additional trial
26
rights.
27
///
28
9
1
A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of
2
habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of
3
a state court only on the ground that the custody is in violation
4
of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28
5
U.S.C. §§ 2254(a), 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,
6
375 n.7 (2000); Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. –, -, 131 S.Ct. 13,
7
16 (2010) (per curiam).
8
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides in pertinent part:
9
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court shall not be granted
with respect to any claim that was adjudicated
on the merits in State court proceedings unless
the adjudication of the claim–
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to,
or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light
of the evidence presented in the State court
proceeding.
17
Clearly established federal law refers to the holdings, as
18
opposed to the dicta, of the decisions of the Supreme Court as of
19
the time of the relevant state court decision.
Cullen v.
20
Pinholster, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1399 (2011); Lockyer v.
21
Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.
22
362, 412 (2000).
A state court’s decision contravenes clearly
23
established Supreme Court precedent if it reaches a legal
24
conclusion opposite to, or substantially different from, the
25
Supreme Court's or concludes differently on a materially
26
indistinguishable set of facts.
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at
27
405-06.
A state court unreasonably applies clearly established
28
10
1
federal law if it either 1) correctly identifies the governing
2
rule but then applies it to a new set of facts in a way that is
3
objectively unreasonable, or 2) extends or fails to extend a
4
clearly established legal principle to a new context in a way
5
that is objectively unreasonable.
6
1132, 1142 (9th Cir. 2002); see, Williams, 529 U.S. at 407.
7
application of clearly established federal law is unreasonable
8
only if it is objectively unreasonable; an incorrect or
9
inaccurate application is not necessarily unreasonable.
10
11
Hernandez v. Small, 282 F.3d
An
Williams, 529 U.S. at 410.
A state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit
12
precludes federal habeas relief as long as fairminded jurists
13
could disagree on the correctness of the state court’s decision.
14
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786 (2011).
15
Although the Constitution does not require states to grant
16
appeals as of right to criminal defendants seeking to review
17
alleged trial court errors, if under state law criminal
18
defendants have a right to appeal criminal convictions, the
19
procedures used in deciding those appeals must comply with the
20
requirements of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of
21
the Constitution.
22
Accordingly, a state must provide a transcript of the trial court
23
proceedings to indigent criminal appellants who cannot afford
24
transcripts if that is the only way to insure an adequate and
25
effective appeal.
26
(1956).
27
28
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 393 (1985).
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18, 13-20
An appellant is entitled to a record that is sufficiently
complete to ensure meaningful appellate review that is
11
1
substantially as adequate and effective as that given to
2
appellants with funds.
3
96 (1963); Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 276-77 n. 9 (2000).
4
The appellant must be given a fair opportunity to present his
5
claims in the context of the state’s appellate process and to
6
obtain an adjudication of the merits of the appeal.
7
Robbins, 528 U.S. at 277.
8
it reasonably ensures that an indigent’s appeal will be resolved
9
in a manner that is related to the merits of the appeal.
10
11
Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 495-
Smith v.
A state’s procedure is sufficient if
Id. at
276-77.
In determining whether a limitation on a record of trial
12
proceedings violates due process, a court considers 1) the value
13
of the transcript to the defendant in connection with the appeal
14
or trial for which it is sought, and 2) the availability of
15
alternative devices that would fulfill the same functions as a
16
transcript.
17
(1971); Madera v. Risley, 885 F.2d 646, 648-49 (9th Cir. 1989).
18
Although an appellant’s right to the assistance of counsel and a
19
brief on the merits must be protected, states must also be able
20
to protect themselves so that frivolous appeals are not
21
subsidized needlessly by public funds.
22
U.S. at 277-78.
23
Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 & n.2
Smith v. Robbins, 528
To establish a due process violation based on the absence of
24
a record, a petitioner must show that he was prejudiced by the
25
record’s absence.
26
McGrath, 314 F.Supp.2d 967, 982 (N.D.Cal. 2004); Quintero v.
27
Tilton, 588 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1128 (C.D.Cal. 2008).
28
information posted on the California courts website shows that
Madera v. Risley, 885 F.2d at 649; Cooper v.
12
Here, the
1
the intermediate state appellate court has rendered a decision in
2
Petitioner’s appeal.
3
Petitioner will seek further review on direct appeal from the
4
California Supreme Court.
5
Petitioner to seek to establish prejudice with respect to his
6
right to appeal because the proceedings on direct appeal have not
7
been concluded.
8
9
It is uncertain, however, whether
Arguably, it is premature for
In his habeas petition filed in the California Supreme
Court, Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to rebut
10
Petitioner’s “presumptive need” for a trial transcript.
11
1, 5-6.)
12
that he suffered prejudice.
13
Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to provide
14
discovery consisting of a copy of a police report of the charges
15
that the prosecutor’s officer maintained, and/or a sworn
16
allegation by Veronica Eve McCarter, the homeowner's sister,
17
that on a previous occasion in November 2009, she had observed
18
that the front door of the house was smashed, and she had
19
identified specific property, including an old record player and
20
four fishing poles, as property missing from the home at that
21
time.
22
the basis of any charge against Petitioner, whose charges stemmed
23
from the later break-in of December 1, 2009.
24
case no. F061339, 2-7.)
25
suffered any prejudice with respect to the absence of a
26
declaration concerning the earlier events.
27
28
(Doc. 1-
As previously noted, it is Petitioner’s burden to show
(Doc. 1-1, 12-13.)
Further, in the petition,
However, the earlier incident was not
(Op. of the CCA,
It thus does not appear that Petitioner
Petitioner alleged in his habeas petition filed in the
California Supreme Court that an unidentified portion of the
13
1
transcript would show that the items found in Petitioner’s
2
pockets were valued at $121.00 and thus did not merit a felony
3
charge; the items were photographed and returned and thus were
4
not booked as evidence.
5
not shown that any specific portion of the record is missing or
6
that in the context of the totality of the evidence introduced at
7
trial, the absence of any such portion of the record affected
8
Petitioner’s right to an effective appeal.
9
(Id. at 20-21.)
However, Petitioner has
Even if the information were shown to be related to the
10
merits of the appeal, it is undisputed that Petitioner received
11
the assistance of appellate counsel, who received the pertinent
12
clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts and attempted to perfect the
13
record on appeal by obtaining additional transcripts.
14
supports an inference that counsel reviewed an adequate record
15
and briefed the arguable issue on the merits.
16
Petitioner has failed to establish any prejudice because he
17
received the assistance of counsel to review the record and argue
18
the case on the merits, and therefore received that which the Due
19
Process and Equal Protection Clauses require.
20
The record
Accordingly,
In sum, state court decisions denying Petitioner’s request
21
for a personal copy of the trial transcripts were not contrary
22
to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established
23
federal law.
24
failure to receive a personal copy of the record do not entitle
25
him to relief in a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
26
Therefore, Petitioner’s allegations concerning his
Accordingly, it will be recommended that Petitioner’s claim
27
concerning denial of his requests for the trial transcripts be
28
dismissed without leave to amend.
14
1
VI.
2
Petitioner has filed various motions in this proceeding,
Dismissal of Pending Motions as Moot
3
including 1) a notice of motion, styled as a motion, indicating
4
an intention to move in the future for a copy of the transcript
5
(doc. 3); 2) a motion for an order granting Petitioner access to
6
the KVSP law library (doc. 11); 3) a request for intervention in
7
the ongoing appellate proceedings to permit Petitioner to obtain
8
a copy of the appellate transcript (doc. 14); 4) another request
9
for law library access (doc. 16); 5) a motion for discovery to be
10
considered in connection with an evidentiary hearing in this
11
Court regarding Petitioner’s motions for transcripts that were
12
denied in the trial court (doc. 19); 6) a proposed order to the
13
respondent to answer the petition, styled as a “SUMMONS” (doc.
14
20); and 7) a motion for an order compelling discovery concerning
15
why Petitioner was denied a copy of the transcript when he had
16
been determined to be indigent (doc. 21).
17
Because Petitioner’s claims merit dismissal due as they do
18
not entitle him to relief in a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
19
2254, it will be recommended that all pending motions filed by
20
Petitioner in this proceeding be dismissed as moot.
21
VII.
22
Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
Certificate of Appealability
23
appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the Court of Appeals
24
from the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the
25
detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state
26
court.
27
U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
28
only if the applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
A certificate of appealability may issue
15
1
of a constitutional right.
2
petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether
3
the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
4
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement
5
to proceed further.
6
(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
7
certificate should issue if the Petitioner shows that jurists of
8
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
9
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that
§ 2253(c)(2).
Under this standard, a
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 336
A
10
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
11
court was correct in any procedural ruling.
12
529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).
13
Slack v. McDaniel,
In determining this issue, a court conducts an overview of
14
the claims in the habeas petition, generally assesses their
15
merits, and determines whether the resolution was debatable among
16
jurists of reason or wrong.
17
applicant to show more than an absence of frivolity or the
18
existence of mere good faith; however, it is not necessary for an
19
applicant to show that the appeal will succeed.
20
Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 338.
Id.
It is necessary for an
Miller-El v.
21
A district court must issue or deny a certificate of
22
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
23
applicant.
24
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Here, it does not appear that reasonable jurists could
25
debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a
26
different manner.
27
of the denial of a constitutional right.
28
recommended that the Court decline to issue a certificate of
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing
16
Accordingly, it will be
1
appealability.
2
VIII.
3
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
4
1)
Recommendations
The petition be DISMISSED without leave to amend because
5
Petitioner’s claims do not entitle him to relief in a proceeding
6
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and
7
8
9
10
11
2)
All pending motions filed by Petitioner be DISMISSED as
moot; and
3)
The Court DECLINE to issue a certificate of
appealability; and
4)
The Clerk be DIRECTED to send a blank civil rights
12
complaint form to Petitioner with this order, and to close the
13
case because an order of dismissal will terminate the proceeding
14
in its entirety.
15
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the
16
United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant
17
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of
18
the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,
19
Eastern District of California.
20
being served with a copy, any party may file written objections
21
with the Court and serve a copy on all parties.
22
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
23
and Recommendations.”
24
and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if
25
served by mail) after service of the objections.
26
then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
27
§ 636 (b)(1)(C).
28
objections within the specified time may waive the right to
Within thirty (30) days after
Such a document
Replies to the objections shall be served
The Court will
The parties are advised that failure to file
17
1
appeal the District Court’s order.
2
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:
ie14hj
June 19, 2012
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?