(HC) Hickman v. Unknown ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN DUANE HICKMAN, No. 2:22-CV-1825-DAD-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s [amended] 19 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1. 20 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary 21 dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits 22 annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case, it 23 is plain that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. 24 In the petition, Petitioner states that he was convicted in 2016 of kidnapping of a 25 child, forcible rape of a child, and criminal threats. See ECF No. 1, pg. 2. Petitioner states he 26 was sentenced to 100 years to life in state prison. See id. Petitioner asks this Court to do a “full 27 settlement and closure” regarding a secured debt as to which Petitioner states he is the creditor. 28 See id. at 3. Attached to the petition are various documents which Petitioner’s contends prove the 1 || existence of the secured debt and his entitlement to funds as a creditor. See id. at 7-32. Petitioner 2 || separately filed additional “financial documents” which he claims support the petition. See ECF 3 || No. 16. 4 Petitioner’s claim, as best the Court can discern it, bears no connection to the 5 || underling 2016 conviction. Petitioner’s petition contains no claims relating to the legality of the 6 || 2016 conviction. Because Petitioner does not raise any challenge to the fact or duration of his 7 || current incarceration, he fails to state a claim which is cognizable under § 2254. See Preiser v. 8 | Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 9 || 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 10 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s petition for 11 | a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be summarily dismissed. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 13 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within 14 days 14 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 15 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 16 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 17 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 19 | Dated: March 7, 2024 Co 20 DENNIS M. COTA 7] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28