(HC) Brown v. Northern Kern State Prison, et al.
Filing
38
ORDER ADOPTING 35 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING 17 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and ORDER DECLINING to Issue a Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 9/14/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Lawrence, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KENYON DERRAL BROWN,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 1:21-cv-01061-ADA-HBK (HC)
Petitioner,
v.
NORTHERN KERN STATE PRISON,
WARDEN,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO
ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
(Doc. Nos. 1, 17, 35)
17
18
19
Petitioner Kenyon Derral Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis with an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
21
2254. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
22
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
23
On June 29, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
24
recommending the court grant respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the pending petition
25
for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 35.) Those findings and recommendations were
26
served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within
27
fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) On July 15, 2022, petitioner filed objections that largely
28
restated the claims made in his petition; therefore, petitioner’s filed objections were unpersuasive.
1
1
(Doc. No. 36.)
2
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
3
de novo review of the case. After carefully reviewing the entire file, including petitioner’s
4
objections, the court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
5
proper analysis.
6
Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether
7
a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no
8
absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed in
9
only certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. §
10
2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the
11
underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of
12
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
13
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
14
correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present
15
case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the
16
petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed
17
further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
18
Accordingly,
19
1.
20
adopted in full;
21
2.
Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 17) is granted;
22
3.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed;
23
4.
The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
The findings and recommendations issued on June 29, 2022, (Doc. No. 35) are
2
1
5.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
2
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 14, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?