(HC) Hatchett v. Clark ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, No. 2:20-cv-1524 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 KEN CLARK, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an amended petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 19 Cases, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any 20 petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted the review 21 required under Rule 4. 22 In his amended petition, petitioner challenges a Sacramento County conviction for 23 indecent exposure. Petitioner pled guilty. 24 Petitioner asserts that his conviction was the result of a “wardrobe malfunction” because 25 the clothes he was wearing, which were issued to him at Folsom State Prison, were too large. He 26 planned on using the large clothing as exhibits at trial, but the clothes were either destroyed or 27 lost by “the government” prior to trial. Petitioner asserts that if the clothes had not been lost or 28 destroyed, he would have proceeded to trial. 1 With respect to a guilty plea, and the resulting sentence, claims which do not concern 2 whether the prisoner entered his plea voluntarily and intelligently are rarely cognizable in any 3 federal habeas action. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969). This is because: 4 [A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process. When a criminal defendant has 5 solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent 6 claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea. 7 8 Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). 9 As indicated above, petitioner was aware of the destruction of his clothing before he pled 10 guilty. That being the case, pursuant to Tollett, petitioner gave up any claim premised upon the 11 destruction of his clothing when he pled guilty. Therefore, the court will recommend that 12 petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed and this case be 13 closed. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 15 court judge to this case. 16 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 17 1. Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 7) be summarily 18 dismissed; and 19 2. This case be closed. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 23 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 24 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner 25 may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of 26 the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district 27 court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 28 applicant). Where, as here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of wOAOe 2 EUV MEMO VR NEE MUO OPI ee YY VI 1 | appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 2 || debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of 3 | reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 4 | constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. 5 | McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within 6 || the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 7 | F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 8 □□□ Fen □□ TE 9 Dated: September 28, 2020 Can Md h it Le { gm, 10 CAROLYN K.DELANEY. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 |, D hate1524.114 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28