(HC) Griffin v. Price ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER LAWRENCE GRIFFIN, No. 1:21-cv-01507-DAD-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 BRANDON PRICE, PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 12, 19) 16 17 Petitioner Dexter Lawrence Griffin, a civil detainee committed to Coalinga State Hospital, 18 is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2554. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 14, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice due to 23 petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims by first presenting them to the highest state court prior to 24 seeking federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 19.) The magistrate judge also recommended that 25 petitioner’s request that his petition not be dismissed (Doc. No. 12) be denied. (Id. at 2.) The 26 pending findings and recommendations were served on petitioner with notice that any objections 27 thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 3.) To date, no objections 28 have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 In addition, having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court now 5 turns to whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A state prisoner seeking a writ of 6 habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an 7 appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 8 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds 9 without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of 10 appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim 11 of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 12 district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 13 “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of 14 the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the 15 petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. In the present case, the 16 court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should 17 be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. 18 Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 Accordingly: 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 14, 2022 (Doc. No. 19) are 21 adopted in full; 22 2. Petitioner’s request that his petition not be dismissed (Doc. No. 12) is denied; 23 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice due to 24 petitioner’s failure to first exhaust his claims in state court prior to seeking federal 25 habeas relief; 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 2 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ 5 Dated: _ April 6, 2022 Yea Fe ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28