(HC) Noble v. Trate ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAD NOBLE, Case No. 1:22-cv-01537 JLT CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING THE PETITION, DIRECTING 14 TRATE, THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A 15 Respondent. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (Docs. 18, 24) 17 Chad Noble is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting the Court should vacate his mandatory life 19 sentence pursuant to the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) and Allen v. Ives, 950 F.3d 2242 20 (2016). (See Doc. 1 at 6.) Respondent seeks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 18.) 21 The magistrate judge found Petitioner was unable to bring his claims in a petition filed 22 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and the Court lacked jurisdiction. (Doc. 24 at 4-5, citing Jones v. 23 Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023).) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended Respondent’s 24 motion be granted and the petition be dismissed. (Id. at 5.) The Court served the Findings and 25 Recommendations on all parties and informed Petitioner that any objections were due within 21 26 days. (Id.) The Court advised Petitioner the “failure to file objections within the specified time 27 may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 6, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 2 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having found Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to whether a 5 certificate of appealability should issue. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 6 2008) (“Where a petition purportedly brought under § 2241 is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 7 motion, the petitioner cannot appeal from the denial of that petition without a [certificate of 8 appealability].”). A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to 9 appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain 10 circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To obtain 11 a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner “must make a substantial 12 showing of the denial of a constitutional right, . . . includ[ing] showing that reasonable jurists 13 could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 14 different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to 15 proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 16 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 17 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the determination 18 the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to 19 proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Thus, the 20 Court ORDERS: 21 1. The Amended Findings and Recommendations issued on November 2, 2023 22 (Doc. 24) are ADOPTED in full. 23 2. The prior Findings and Recommendations issued the same date (Doc. 23) shall be 24 terminated. 25 3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. 26 4. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is 27 DISMISSED. 1 6. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4] Dated: _ January 26, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28