(HC) Kalso v. Butte County Superior Court

Filing 7

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/26/2024 ADOPTING 6 Findings and Recommendations in Full, DISMISSING the operative 1 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus as duplicative of the already dismissed petition filed in Kalso v. Butte County Superior Court, No. 2:24-cv-00507-DJC-DMC, DECLINING to issue a certificate of appealability, and DIRECTING the court to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ZACHARY LLOYD KALSO,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

15

Respondent.

No. 2:24-cv-00512-DAD-CKD (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
THE PETITION
(Doc. No. 6)

16
Petitioner Zachary Lloyd Kalso is a former detainee of the Butte County Jail1 proceeding

17
18

pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 24, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21
22

recommending that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be dismissed because it was duplicative of

23

another petition he had filed on the same day. (Doc. No. 6 at 1); see Pet., Kalso v. Butte Cnty.

24

Superior Court, No. 2:24-cv-00507-DJC-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2024) (Doc. No. 1); Kalso

25

v. Butte Cnty. Superior Court, No. 2:24-cv-00643-WBS-AC, 2024 WL 923511, at *3 (E.D. Cal.

26
27
28

1

The undersigned notes that petitioner appears to have filed his petition prior to any criminal
conviction and sought to be released from Butte County Jail on a lower bail. (Doc. No. 1 at 3–4.)
Petitioner has since updated his address, indicating that he has been released from custody.
1

1

Mar. 1, 2024) (referring to instant case and another habeas petition by petitioner as seeking the

2

same relief as that sought in a separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case filed by petitioner), report and

3

recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-cv-00643-WBS-AC, 2024 WL 1857855 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29,

4

2024). The undersigned also notes that petitioner’s first filed habeas petition in 2:24-cv-00507-

5

DJC-DMC-P, which the petition in this case is duplicative of, was summarily dismissed on

6

August 2, 2024, as failing to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief because petitioner

7

was not challenging a state court judgment. See Order, Kalso, 2:24-cv-00507-DJC-DMC-P (Aug.

8

2, 2024) (Doc. No. 8).

9

The pending findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained

10

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

11

(Doc. No. 6 at 2.) To date, petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so

12

has passed.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
2

1

Accordingly,

2

1.

3

The findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2024 (Doc. No. 6) are
adopted in full;

4

2.

The operative petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this action (Doc. No. 1)

5

is dismissed as duplicative of the already dismissed petition filed in Kalso v. Butte

6

Cnty. Superior Court, No. 2:24-cv-00507-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.);

7

3.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

8

4.

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

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

Dated:

November 26, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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