Jackson v. Arnold

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING 31 Findings and Recommendations that Court DISMISS Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER DENYING 24 Motion to Dismiss, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/4/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH A. JACKSON,

12

Petitioner,

(Doc. No. 31)

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COURT
DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS

Respondent.

13

ERIC ARNOLD,

15

Case No. 1:17-cv-01670-LJO-JDP (HC)

16
17

Petitioner Kenneth A. Jackson, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas

18

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 16). The court has referred this matter to a magistrate

19

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On September 25, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

21

recommendations that the court deny the petition and decline to issue a certificate of

22

appealability. (Doc. No. 31). On October 12, 2019 Petitioner filed objections to the findings and

23

recommendations. (Doc. No. 32). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

24

and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully

25

reviewed the entire file, including the petitioner’s objections, the court concludes the findings and

26

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

27
28

In his objections, petitioner argues that the initial criminal complaint lacked probable
cause and that his counsel was ineffective for failure to raise lack of probable cause at trial.
1

1

These arguments were addressed and dismissed as meritless in the findings and

2

recommendations. (Doc. No. 32).

3

Petitioner next argues that a felony case cannot be initiated through a criminal complaint.

4

(See Doc. No. 32 at 6). On the contrary, in California the criminal complaint “solidifies the

5

adverse position between the prosecutor and the defendant and marks the commencement of the

6

prosecutorial, as distinct from investigative, phase of the criminal justice process.” People v.

7

Viray, 134 Cal. App. 4th 1186 (Cal. App. 2005). In cases where an arrest warrant is sought, as in

8

petitioner’s case, a “proceeding for the examination before a magistrate of a person on a charge of

9

a felony must be commenced by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant and

10

filed with the magistrate.” Cal. Pen. Code § 806.

11

Relatedly, petitioner argues that he did not have proper notice of the criminal case against

12

him. (See Doc. No. 31 at 10). The criminal complaint here consisted of ten pages that described

13

the 34 criminal counts against petitioner in detail. (Doc. No. 16 at 46-56). This complaint

14

provided sufficient notice to petitioner of the nature of the charges brought against him.

15

Finally, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to

16

appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain

17

circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). Specifically, the federal

18

rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court issuing an order

19

denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of appealability. See Rules

20

Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the

21

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the

24

showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that

25

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable

26

or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Additionally, for claims denied on

27

procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability should issue “when the prisoner shows, at least,

28

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
2

1

of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court

2

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. Here, petitioner has not made such a showing.

3

Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued.

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September
25, 2019, (Doc. No. 31), are adopted in full;

6
7

2.

The respondent’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 24), is denied as moot;

8

3.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 16) is denied;

9

4.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

5.

The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of respondent and close

10

this case.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
Dated:
14

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

December 4, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3