(HC) Hinojosa v. Warden ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT GEORGE HINOJOSA, No. 2:22-cv-01780 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, SATF/SP, 15 Respondent. 16 17 A petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was filed, it appears, on 18 behalf of petitioner, Robert Hinojosa, by a fellow inmate, who identifies himself as Joshua Davis 19 Bland. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 10, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.) Mr. Bland has filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 9.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 27 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The 28 court has reviewed Mr. Bland’s objections and finds they are without merit. “[O]ne necessary 1 | condition for ‘next friend’ standing in federal court is a showing by the proposed ‘next friend’ 2 || that the real party in interest is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of 3 || access to court, or other similar disability.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 165 (1990). 4 | Mr. Bland has not made such a showing here. Mr. Bland suggests the petitioner is incompetent 5 || because he has not received a proper education. See Objs. at 3-4, ECF No. 4; Mot. at 1, ECF 6 || No. 2. However, lack of education does not render a person incompetent or unable to make 7 | intelligent decisions. Cf Massie ex rel. Kroll v. Woodford, 244 F.3d 1192, 1196 (9th Cir. 2001) 8 | (‘The putative next friend must present ‘meaningful evidence’ that petitioner is suffering from a 9 || mental disease, disorder, or defect that substantially affects his capacity to make an intelligent 10 || decision.”). 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 10, 2023, are adopted in full; 13 2. Mr. Bland’s motion to proceed as a “next friend” (ECF No. 2) is denied; 14 3. The petition is dismissed without prejudice; 15 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 16 | § 2253; and 17 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 18 | DATED: July 21, 2023. 19 20 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28