Magallanes-Castro v. G-4-S Security
Filing
10
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 5/21/2015 SUMMARILY DISMISSING this action; the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and the Clerk shall enter judgment and close this file. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
OLIVIA MAGALLANES-CASTRO,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:14-CV-0569-CMK-P
vs.
ORDER
G-4-S SECURITY,
15
Respondent.
16
/
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of
18
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge
19
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the
20
action.
21
22
23
24
25
26
On October 14, 2014, the court directed petitioner to show cause in writing within
30 days why this petition should not be summarily dismissed. The court stated:
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears
from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case,
it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Petitioner
states that she was injured when she was being transported to court for an
immigration hearing. Petitioner adds: “We crashed. This is negligence on
1
1
his part.” Given the entirety of petitioner’s claim, it is clear that petitioner
seeks damages for injuries she claims were caused due to the negligence of
the named respondent, G-4-S Security.
A cognizable habeas corpus claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
arises when a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either
the fact of confinement or the duration of confinement – and the relief he
seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate
release. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal
v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa
Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In the instant case,
petitioner alleges facts consistent with a state law tort claim based on
negligence. Because the facts alleged in this case do not relate to the fact
or duration of petitioner’s confinement, the matter is not the proper subject
of a petitioner under § 2254.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Petitioner was warned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 110 that failure to
10
respond to the court’s order could result in dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution as well
11
as the reasons outlined above. To date, petitioner has not responded to the court’s order to show
12
cause.
13
Therefore, given petitioner’s lack of prosecution in addition to the reasons
14
outlined in the court’s order to show cause, the court finds that summary dismissal of this
15
petition is appropriate.
16
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the
17
court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before petitioner can appeal
18
this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.
19
22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under
20
28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
21
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of
22
appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why
23
such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed
24
on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show:
25
(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
26
procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
2
1
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775,
2
780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)).
3
For the reasons set forth in the court’s October 14, 2014, order to show cause, the court finds that
4
issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1.
This action is summarily dismissed;
7
2.
The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
8
3.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.
9
10
11
12
DATED: May 21, 2015
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?