(HC) Davis v. People of San Joaquin

Filing 9

ORDER signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/6/2025 ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations in Full, DISMISSING the 1 Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus, DECLINING to issue a certificate of appealability and DIRECTING the court to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk AMW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIS DAVIS,

12
13

No. 2:24-cv-00734-DC-EFB (HC)
Petitioner,

v.

14

PEOPLE OF SAN JOAQUIN,

15

Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
HABEAS PETITION
(Doc. No. 7)

16
17

Petitioner Willis Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a

18

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

19

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On November 12, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

21

recommendations recommending this action be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

22

because Petitioner does not allege that his custody violates federal law. (Doc. No. 7.) Instead,

23

Petitioner challenges his state court restitution order. (Id.) The findings and recommendations

24

were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections to the findings and

25

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id.)

26

Petitioner timely filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations, which the court

27

read and considered. (Doc. No. 8.) In his objections, Petitioner reiterates his request to reduce the

28

state court restitution order, but he does not address the issue of this court’s jurisdiction. (Id.)
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a

11

certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states

12

a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it

13

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

14

U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the

15

court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong.

16

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

17

Accordingly,

18

1.

19

The findings and recommendations issued on November 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 7) are
adopted in full;

20

2.

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

21

3.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

22

4.

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

23
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

March 6, 2025

___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3