(HC) Jackson-Bey v. Trate ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAARIQ KAALEEQ JACKSON-BEY, No. 1:23-cv-01510-JLT-EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 B.M. TRATE, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. 6) 16 17 Taariq Kaaleeq Jackson-Bey is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 8, 2024,1 the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which 21 concluded that the Court should dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 6.) The Court 22 served the findings and recommendations on Petitioner and notified the parties that any objections 23 were to be filed within 30 days of the date of service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) 24 On February 22, 2024, the Court received Petitioner’s objections. (Doc. 7.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 26 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 27 objections, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 28 1 The findings and recommendations were signed on January 6, 2024, but not docketed until January 8, 2024. 1 | and proper analysis. 2 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 3 | whether a certificate of appealability (“COA”) should issue. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 4 | 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Where a petition purportedly brought under § 2241 is merely a 5 | ‘disguised’ § 2255 motion, the petitioner cannot appeal from the denial of that petition without a 6 | COA.”). A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 7 | district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 8 | Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To obtain a certificate of 9 | appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner “must make a substantial showing of the 10 | denial of a constitutional right, . . . includ[ing] showing that reasonable jurists could debate 11 | whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 12 || manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 13 | further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 14 | 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 15 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 16 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should 17 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 18 | Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 8, 2024 (Doc. 6) are 20 ADOPTED IN FULL. 21 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 23 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 24, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28