(HC) Major v. Unknown

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Directing Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge and Close Case, and Declining to Issue Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/15/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MATTHEW B. MAJOR,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.
UNKNOWN,

15

Respondent.

16

No. 1:21-cv-00166-NONE-SAB-HC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE AND CLOSE
CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
(Doc. No. 12)

17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

19

purportedly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States

20

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 30, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21
22

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc.

23

No. 12.) First, petitioner alleges that he has been housed in the security housing unit for refusing

24

to submit to COVID-19 testing due to his beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) The

25

magistrate judge found that because this allegation concerns the conditions of petitioner’s

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

confinement, federal habeas relief is not available to him with respect to this claim.1 (Doc. No.

2

12 at 2–3.) Second, petitioner challenges the California Department of Corrections and

3

Rehabilitation’s calculation of his custody credits (Doc. No. 1 at 1–2), and further indicates that

4

he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state superior court (Doc. No. 9 at 1). Because

5

petitioner has not yet presented his claim in this regard to the California Supreme Court, however,

6

the magistrate judge found that his miscalculation of credits claim is not yet exhausted and should

7

be dismissed at this time. (Doc. No. 12 at 3–4.)

8
9

The findings and recommendations were served petitioner and contained notice that any
objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and

10

recommendations. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.

11

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

12

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court holds the findings

13

and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

14

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether

15

a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no

16

absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only

17

allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C.

18

§ 2253. The court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate

19

whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different

20

manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

21

further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.

22

880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).
In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s

23
24

determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should

25

be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

26

1

27
28

The magistrate judge did not find it appropriate to construe the habeas petition as a § 1983
complaint because petitioner does not name any respondent in this matter. (Doc. No. 12 at 3
(“This conclusion, however, does not preclude Petitioner from pursuing his claims in a properly
filed civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).)
2

1

Accordingly,

2

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 30, 2021, (Doc. No. 12), are

3

adopted in full;

4

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice;

5

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose

6
7
8
9

of closing the case and then to close the case; and
4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 15, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3