(HC) Antoine D. Barnes v. United States President Trump ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, Case No. 1:20-cv-01126-NONE-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING WITH MODIFICATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 UNITED STATES PRESIDENT TRUMP, (Doc. Nos. 1, 5) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Antoine Deshawn Barnes, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has 18 petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner 19 asks this court in two related claims to issue a patent for his “full name, images, face, [and] 20 body.” (Id. at 3.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, the instant federal 21 habeas petition was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. 22 On August 21, 2020, the then–assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for failure to state a 24 cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 5.) Those findings and recommendations 25 concluded that there is no basis in the law for the relief requested by petitioner through a habeas 26 petition. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner has not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations 27 despite being given the opportunity to do so. 28 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has reviewed 2 this case de novo and finds the pending findings and recommendations to be supported by the 3 record and proper analysis and will adopt the findings and recommendations in large part. 4 Because petitioner had a habeas petition pending before this court (No. 1:20-cv-00836-NONE- 5 JDP) when he filed the instant petition, this petition is treated as a motion to amend the earlier 6 petition. Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2008). The claim alleged in this action is not 7 cognizable; therefore, the motion to amend will be denied and the petition will be dismissed. 8 The court must now turn to whether a certificate of appealability should be issued. A 9 petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s 10 denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 11 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Courts should issue a certificate of 12 appealability only if “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 13 petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 14 ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 15 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the 16 court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should 17 be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. 18 Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows: 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 5) are 21 ADOPTED as follows; 22 2. The petition in this action will be treated as a constructive MOTION TO AMEND for the 23 reasons stated above, and the motion to amend is DENIED; 24 3. Because the motion to amend is denied, the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) 25 is DISMISSED; 26 4. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the purposes of 2 closure and to close this case. 3 | IT IS SO ORDERED. = □□ Dated: _ December 8, 2020 Ya AL oye 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28