(HC) Griffin v. Price ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER LAWRENCE GRIFFIN, No. 1:22-cv-00015-JLT SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING PETITIONER’S 14 BRANDON PRICE, MOTIONS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 15 Respondent. ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (Docs. 4, 5, 8) 17 18 Dexter Lawrence Griffin, who is civilly committed to Coalinga State Hospital, is 19 proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 21 and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 2, 2022, the magistrate judge determined the petition for writ of habeas 23 corpus duplicated that filed in Case No. 1: :21-cv-01507-SAB, as in both actions he “challenge[s] 24 his indefinite commitment and an August 15, 2008 Sacramento County Superior Court 25 determination that Petitioner is a sexually violent predator within the meaning of California 26 Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600, et seq.” (Doc. 4 at 3.) In so finding, the magistrate judge 27 also noted the petition now before the Court “contains pages that are exact duplicates of the 28 petition currently pending in the previously filed case,” and Petitioner “does not attempt to raise 1 new claims.” (Id.) Therefore, on February 2, 2022, the magistrate judge recommended the 2 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as duplicative of the petition filed in Griffin v. 3 Price, No. 1:21-cv-01507-SAB. (Id.) 4 The Findings and Recommendations were served Petitioner and contained notice that any 5 objections were to be filed within thirty days of the date of service. (Doc. 4 at 3.) On February 6 28, 2022, Petitioner filed his objections (Doc. 7), along with a Rule 37 motion to compel 7 disclosure (Doc. 5) and a motion for miscellaneous relief (Doc. 8). On March 9, 2022, Petitioner 8 submitted a duplicate copy of his objections. (Doc. 9.) However, Petitioner does not refute the 9 fining by the magistrate judge that the petition now pending is duplicative. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de 11 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file— including Petitioner’s 12 objections— the Court holds the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and 13 proper analysis. 14 In the Rule 37 motion, Petitioner requests the Coalinga State Hospital withdraw $40.00 15 for witness fees and mileage. (Doc. 5.) The Court has not authorized discovery in this matter. See 16 Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (stating that leave of court is required for a 17 party to conduct discovery). Accordingly, the Rule 37 motion will be denied. It is unclear to the 18 Court what relief Petitioner seeks in his other motion, though Petitioner refers to a change in 19 counsel in his state proceeding, an evidentiary hearing, appointment of counsel, service of 20 documents, and speedy trial violations. (Doc. 8.) As the Petition will be dismissed as duplicative, 21 an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel are not warranted. Accordingly, Petitioner’s 22 motion for miscellaneous relief will likewise be denied. 23 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 24 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 25 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 26 allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 27 § 2253. The court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 28 whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 1 | manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 2 | further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 3 | 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find 4 | the determination that the petition should be dismissed as duplicative debatable or wrong, or that 5 | Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate 6 | of appealability. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 2, 2022 (Doc. 4) are 8 ADOPTED in full. 9 2. Petitioner’s motions (Docs. 5 and 8) are DENIED. 10 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 11 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 12 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1s | Dated: _ March 14, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28