(HC)Hickman v. Unknown

Filing 20

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/25/2024 ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations; and Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KEVIN DUANE HICKMAN,

11

Petitioner,

12

v.

13

UNKNOWN,

14

No. 2:22-cv-01825-DAD-DMC (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
THIS PETITION
Respondent.

(Doc. No. 19)

15
16
17

Petitioner Kevin Duane Hickman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was

19

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

20

302.

21

On March 7, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

22

recommending that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be dismissed because it does not challenge

23

his underlying state court conviction and sentence and therefore fails to state a cognizable claim

24

for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 19 at 2.) Rather, the magistrate judge found that the pending,

25

difficult to decipher petition was an attempt by petitioner to have the court perform a “full

26

settlement and closure” regarding a secured debt of which petitioner alleges he is the creditor.

27

(Id. at 1–2.) The pending findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner and

28

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date
1

1

of service. (Id. at 2.) To date, petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in which to do

2

so has passed.

3

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

4

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

5

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

6

Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to

7

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

8

right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v.

9

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may

10

only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the

11

denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas

12

relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court

13

should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

14

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would

15

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.

16

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists

17

would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be

18

debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

19

Accordingly,

20

1.

21

The findings and recommendations issued on March 7, 2024 (Doc. No. 19) are
adopted in full;

22

2.

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

23

3.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

24

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated:

November 25, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2