(HC) Hudkins v. Clark

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING 4 Findings and Recommendations, DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Close Case, and DECLINING to Issue Certificate of Appealability, signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 9/14/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY D. HUDKINS,

12
13
14

No. 1:22-cv-00375-ADA-HBK (HC)

Petitioner,
v.
K. CLARK, WARDEN,

15

Respondent.

16

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, 4)

17
18
19

Petitioner Timothy D. Hudkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

with an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This

21

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

22

Local Rule 302.

23

On April 29, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

24

recommending that the pending petition be dismissed because it raises a civil rights claim and is

25

duplicative of a pending civil rights case. (Doc. No. 4.) Those findings and recommendations

26

were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within

27

fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) On May 23, 2022, petitioner filed objections that largely

28

restated the claims made in his petition; therefore, petitioner’s filed objections were unpersuasive.
1

1
2

(Doc. No. 5.)
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. Thus, having carefully reviewed 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 encouraged to

17

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

18

Accordingly,

19

1.

The findings and recommendations issued on April 29, 2022, (Doc. No. 4) are

20

adopted in full;

21

2.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed;

22

3.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

23

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 14, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2