(HC) Russ v. Price ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ROY RUSS, CASE NO. 1:18-CV-1154 AWI JDP (HC) 7 Plaintiff ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 8 v. RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, and 9 BRANDON PRICE, ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 10 Defendant 11 (Doc. Nos. 24, 29) 12 Petitioner is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus that 13 is ostensibly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 15, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued 14 Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) that recommended granting Respondent’s motion to 15 dismiss the petition as untimely. See Doc. No. 29. Specifically, the F&R found that the petition 16 was appropriately classified as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and that Petitioner had 17 failed to meet the one year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See id. On June 5, 2020, 18 Petitioner filed objections. See Doc. No. 30. 19 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 20 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 21 objections, the Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record 22 and proper analysis. Contrary to Petitioner’s objections, his petition is properly reviewed under 28 23 U.S.C. § 2254. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2005); Russ v. 24 King, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129607, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016); Padilla v. King, 2014 U.S. 25 Dist. LEXIS 183948, *6-*7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014); Carmony v. Mayberg, 2011 U.S. Dist. 26 LEXIS 3470, *4 (Jan. 10, 2011). Therefore, the Court will overrule Petitioner’s objections and 27 adopt the F&R. 28 1 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 2 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller- 3 El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue 4 a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 5 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on 6 appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 7 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding 8 to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense 9 against the United States, or to test the validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings. 10 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 11 appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from– 12 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which 13 the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or 14 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 15 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 16 only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 17 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 18 indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 19 20 If a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying 21 constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would 22 find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 23 that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 24 ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and 25 the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude 26 either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed 27 to proceed further.” Id. 28 1 In the present case, reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that 2 |Petitioner’s habeas petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be 3 | allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 5 ORDER 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on May 15, 2020 (Doc. No. 29) is ADOPTED 8 IN FULL; 9 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED; 10 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as untimely; 11 4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case; and 12 5. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ November 16, 2020 —= Z : Cb it — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28