(HC) Simpson v. Black ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAROLD ROCHELLE SIMPSON, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01121 JLT EPG (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 13 v. ) RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, ) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 CINDY BLACK, ) HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, Acting Executive Director of Napa State Hosp., ) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 15 ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE Respondent. ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 ) ) (Docs. 13, 18) 17 ) 18 Harold Rochelle Simpson is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, asserting the 20 petition was premature because Simpson “has not been tried on the charges he is seeking to have this 21 Court dismiss.” (Doc. 13 at 1.) 22 On February 9, 2022, the magistrate judge found Simpson failed to exhaust the state judicial 23 remedies with respect to the claims raised in the petition. (Doc. 18 at 1-2.) In addition, the magistrate 24 judge determined Simpson failed to prosecute his petition, because the Court’s mail was returned as 25 undeliverable. (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion to dismiss be 26 granted and the matter be dismissed without prejudice for Simpson’s nonexhaustion and failure to 27 prosecute. (Id.) The parties were granted fourteen days to file any objections to the Findings and 28 Recommendations. (Id. at 3-4.) The Findings and Recommendations served upon Simpson were 1 || returned as undeliverable, and Respondent did not file objections. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C©), the Court conducted a de nove 3 || review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the Findings and 4 || Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to whether a 6 || certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 7 || entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain 8 circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court 9 || should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that 10 || matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 11 || presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.. 12 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 13 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the determination th: 14 || the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed 15 further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the Court 16 |} ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 9, 2022 (Doc. 18) are 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. 20 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 21 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 |! Dated: _-March 13, 2022 ( LAW pA L. wan 25 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28