(HC) Trammell v. City of San Francisco ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICHOLAS KENNETH TRAMMELL, Case No. 1:21-cv-00178-NONE-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE 14 CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 Respondent. ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND TO 16 CLOSE THE CASE 17 (Doc. No. 12) 18 19 Petitioner Nicholas Kenneth Trammell is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona 20 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, the instant federal habeas petition was referred to a United 22 States Magistrate Judge. 23 On March 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 recommending that the petition be dismissed “because it raises claims relating to petitioner’s 25 conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of his confinement, and is duplicative of 26 his earlier-filed case.” (Doc. No. 12 at 3.) To date, no objections have been filed to those 27 findings and recommendations, and the time to do so has passed. 28 ///// 1 The undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Based upon that review, the undersigned finds the pending 3 | findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 4 | the findings and recommendations will be adopted in full. 5 The court must now turn to whether a certificate of appealability should be issued. A 6 || petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s 7 | denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 8 || Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Courts should issue a certificate of 9 | appealability only if “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 10 | petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 11 | ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 12 | (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the court 13 | finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should be 14 | dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, 15 | the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 12) are adopted in 18 full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied; 20 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 21 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of 22 closing the case and then to close this case. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ April 15, 2021 Yole A Lara 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28