(HC) Winston v. Trate

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations, Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Denying Petitioner's Motions 3 , 4 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 16 & 18 , Directing Clerk of Court to Close Case, and Declining to Issue Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/4/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Lawrence, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEANTHONY T. WINSTON,

12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,
v.
B.M. TRATE,
Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-0182 JLT EPG (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTIONS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO
ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
(Docs. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18)

17
18

LeAnthony T. Winston is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

19

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The magistrate judge found the Court lacks

20

jurisdiction over the petition, through which Petitioner sought to invoke the savings clause of 28

21

U.S.C. § 2255(e). The magistrate judge recommended the petition be dismissed for lack of

22

jurisdiction. In addition, the magistrate judge found Petitioner failed to show he was entitled to

23

injunctive relief in this action, and recommended his requests be denied. (Doc. 15.)

24

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that

25

any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 15 at 7.) The Court advised him that the “failure

26

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

27

order.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did

28

not file objections, and the time to do so has passed.
1

1

However, after the Findings and Recommendations were issued, Petitioner filed two

2

motions for leave to file supplemental pleadings. (Docs. 16, 18.) Rule 15 provides that “[o]n

3

motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental

4

pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the

5

pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d); see also U.S. ex rel. Kinney v. Stoltz, 327

6

F.3d 671, 673 n.4 (8th Cir. 2003) (observing Rule 15(d) “gives the district court discretion to

7

permit parties to serve supplemental pleadings,” and a party “cannot supplement… as a matter of

8

right”). Petitioner’s filings contain additional arguments in support of his petition, rather than

9

identify “any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the” petition.

10

Therefore, Petitioner’s motions to supplement are denied. Moreover, the additional filings do not

11

contain any information that supports a conclusion the Court has jurisdiction over the petition.

12

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

13

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations

14

are supported by the record and proper analysis.

15

Having found Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court must determine whether

16

a certificate of appealability should issue. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir.

17

2008) (“Where a petition purportedly brought under § 2241 is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255

18

motion, the petitioner cannot appeal from the denial of that petition without a COA.”). A

19

petitioner has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an

20

appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36

21

(2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a

22

petitioner “must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, … includ[ing]

23

showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition

24

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to

25

deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000)

26

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).

27
28

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s
determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should
2

1

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

2

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

3

1.

4

The findings and recommendations issued on April 5, 2024 (Doc. 15) are
ADOPTED in full.

5

2.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

6

3.

Petitioner’s pending motions (Docs. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, and 18) are DENIED.

7

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

8

5.

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 4, 2024

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