(HC) Burgess v. The People of the State of CA ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DWAYNE LAMONT BURGESS, No. 2:22-cv-00573-DAD-DMC (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF HABEAS PETITION CALIFORNIA, 15 (Doc. Nos. 1, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19) Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Dwayne Lamont Burgess is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On September 14, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be summarily dismissed 23 for lack of jurisdiction because “[p]etitioner appears to complain about the confiscation of money 24 and/or property in the context of a state court criminal action,” and “[p]roperty-related claims are 25 not within the scope of the writ of habeas corpus.” (Doc. No. 17 at 2.) The pending findings and 26 recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto 27 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) On October 3, 2022, petitioner 28 filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 20.) 1 Petitioner’s objections are rambling and difficult to decipher. Though not entirely clear, it 2 appears that petitioner seeks to invoke “admiralty” jurisdiction in this court. (Id. at 3.) However, 3 even if petitioner’s property claims arise under admiralty and maritime law, they still cannot form 4 the basis for any cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. As the magistrate judge explained in 5 the pending findings and recommendations, federal habeas actions are brought by prisoners 6 challenging the fact or duration of a state court conviction, not prisoners asserting property- 7 related claims. (Doc. No. 17 at 2.) Accordingly, petitioner’s objections provide no basis upon 8 which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 10 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 11 objections, the court concludes that the pending findings and recommendations are supported by 12 the record and proper analysis. 13 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 14 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 15 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 16 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 17 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 18 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 19 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 20 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 21 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 22 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 23 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 24 would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 25 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 26 Accordingly, 27 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 14, 2022 (Doc. No. 17) 28 are adopted in full; 1 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 2 3, Petitioner’s pending motions and requests (Doc. Nos. 8, 10, 11, 15, 19) are denied 3 as having been rendered moot by this order; 4 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 5 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. "| Dated: _November 22, 2022 Dab A. 2, aol 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28