(HC) E.F.C v. County of Sacramento ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 E.F.C., an individual Minor, through No. 2:23-cv-02683-DAD-KJN (HC) JACQUELINE COLEMAN, 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 HABEAS PETITION FOR LACK OF COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., JURISDICTION 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 1, 4) 16 17 Petitioner Jacqueline Coleman is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 20, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that the pending federal habeas petition be summarily dismissed 22 due to lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 4.) Specifically, the magistrate judge screened the petition 23 and concluded that: (1) petitioner Coleman purports to bring this action on behalf of herself as 24 well as her minor child, E.F.C., but as a pro se litigant can only represent herself; (2) the pending 25 petition seeks resolution of child custody issues over which this federal court lacks jurisdiction; 26 and (3) to the extent petitioner challenges state court orders regarding child custody, this federal 27 court lacks jurisdiction to review final determination of state court dependency proceedings. (Id. 28 at 2–3.) The pending findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained 1 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) 2 On November 28, 2023, petitioner filed a 37-page document entitled both “Objection’s 3 [sic] to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, and POS” and “Verified First 4 Amended Complaint for Civil Rights Violations Seeking Damages an Injunction Declaratory 5 Judgment and Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (Doc. No. 7.) That filing essentially raises 6 the same contentions advanced in the pending petition for habeas relief and fails to 7 provide any basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. 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 pending findings and recommendations are supported by 11 the record and proper analysis. 12 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 13 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 14 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 15 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 16 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 17 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 18 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 19 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 20 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 21 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 22 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 23 would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed due to lack 24 of jurisdiction to be debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of 25 appealability. 26 Accordingly, 27 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 20, 2023 (Doc. No. 4) are 28 adopted in full; 1 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 2 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 3 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: December 15, 2023 Dal A. 2, oyel 6 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28