(HC) Bailey v. CDCR ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN DWAYNE BAILEY, No. 1:21-cv-00696-DAD-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PETITION CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, (Doc. No. 8) 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner Steven Dwayne Bailey is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 3, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that the pending petition be dismissed because it fails to present any cognizable 23 grounds for federal habeas relief or any facts in support of such grounds. (Doc. No. 8.) These 24 findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any 25 objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. (Id. at 4.) 26 On May 19, 2021, petitioner filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and 27 recommendations. (Doc. No. 10.) 28 ///// 1 In his objections, petitioner asserts that he stated a cognizable claim for habeas relief 2 because he was denied due process of the law and equal protection under the Fourteenth 3 Amendment, and because the conditions under which he is incarcerated during the COVID-19 4 pandemic constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 5 1–2.) The court finds petitioner’s arguments unpersuasive. As noted in the pending findings and 6 recommendations, petitioner’s civil rights claims are not cognizable in a federal habeas action and 7 must be dismissed. Petition may seek relief for such claims by way of a civil rights action. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 10 objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 11 supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner’s objections present no grounds for 12 questioning the magistrate judge’s analysis. 13 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 14 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 15 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El 16 v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 17 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 18 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the 19 petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 20 that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 21 were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 22 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 23 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 24 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 25 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 26 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 27 proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 ///// 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 3, 2021 (Doc. No. 8) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 5 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 | ORDERED. a 8 Li. wh F Dated: _ June 14, 2021 wea rE 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28