(HC) Brown v. North Kern State Prison ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENYON D. BROWN, No. 1:20-cv-01068-NONE-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS DUPLICATIVE 14 NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, (Doc. Nos. 1, 11, 15, 17, 18) 15 Respondent. 16 17 On August 3, 2020, petitioner Kenyon D. Brown, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se 18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from his 2019 state 19 court criminal conviction, even though he had filed the same habeas petition with this court 20 months earlier. (Doc. Nos. 1; 11 at 2 (citing Brown v. North Kern State Prison Warden, No. 21 1:20-cv-01043-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2020).) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 22 Local Rule 302, the instant federal habeas petition was referred to a United States Magistrate 23 Judge. On September 17, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge found the instant habeas petition to 24 be duplicative and recommended that it be dismissed. (Doc. No. 11.) Petitioner has twice filed 25 objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) 26 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has reviewed 27 this case de novo. Having reviewed petitioner’s objections, the court finds that petitioner fails to 28 meaningfully address the magistrate judge’s reasoning and conclusion that the instant habeas 1 | petition is duplicative. The court further finds that the pending findings and recommendations are 2 || supported by the record and proper analysis and will adopt the findings and recommendations. 3 The court must now turn to whether a certificate of appealability should be issued. A 4 || petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s 5 | denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El y. 6 | Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Courts should issue a certificate of 7 | appealability only if “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 8 || petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 9 | ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 10 | (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the 11 | court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should 12 | be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. The 13 | court therefore declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 14 Accordingly: 15 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 11), issued on September 17, 2020, 16 are ADOPTED in full; 17 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED; 18 3, All other pending motions (Doc. Nos. 15, 17, 18) are also DISMISSED as moot; 19 4. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 20 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the 21 purpose of closing the case and then to enter judgment and close the case. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ January 11, 2021 a aL, A a anys 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28