(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
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?