(HC)Watkins v. Tuolumne County Superior Court ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND CHAD WATKINS, No. 1:23-cv-01450-JLT-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 (Doc. 5) v. 14 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING 15 TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT COURT, AND CLOSE CASE 16 Respondent. ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 17 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 18 Raymond Chad Watkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This 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 The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition and 22 abstain from interfering in ongoing state proceedings. (Doc. 6.) Petitioner filed objections. 23 (Doc. 6.) Petitioner complains that he is not being given reasonable accommodations that would 24 enable him to pursue various legal remedies. (Id.) As noted by the magistrate judge, such claims 25 concern conditions of confinement and must be raised by way of a civil rights complaint. With 26 respect to his claims concerning his ongoing state criminal proceedings, Petitioner fails to 27 demonstrate that the state courts do not provide an adequate forum for redress. Among other 28 things, Petitioner claims that the appellate court has refused to file his notice of appeal. This is 1 understandable, as there does not appear to be a state court judgment from which to appeal. 2 Petitioner does not state that he is precluded from filing a state habeas petition at any level of the 3 state courts or that he is barred from presenting his complaints to the trial court, either on his own 4 or through his attorney. Petitioner’s other various complaints as to trial court rulings in his 5 ongoing state proceeding are also not properly before this Court. 6 Accordance to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 7 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections, the Court 8 concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 10 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 11 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 12 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 13 appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 14 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 15 appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. 16 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 17 trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 18 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 19 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from— 20 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 21 court; or 22 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 23 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 24 right. 25 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 26 specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 27 If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 28 1 | when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2 | § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable 3 || jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved 4 | ina different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to 5 | proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 6 | U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 7 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 8 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 9 | appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 10 | entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 11 | proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 11, 2023, (Doc. 5), are 13 ADOPTED IN FULL. 14 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Petitioner with blank civil rights 16 complaint forms. 17 4. The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment and close the case. 18 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. > Dated: _ October 24, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28