Opinion

(HC) Dugger v. Allison

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Aug 3, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.7%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 PHILIP G. DUGGER, No. 1:21-cv-01059-DAD-SKO (HC)

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

14 K. ALLISON, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE

15 Respondent. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

16 (Doc. Nos. 1, 11)

17

18 Petitioner Philip G. Dugger is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred

20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21 On July 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened petitioner’s petition and issued

22 findings and recommendations recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief

23 be summarily dismissed because petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for federal

24 habeas relief. (Doc. No. 11.) In particular, the findings and recommendations concluded that

25 petitioner does not challenge his conviction; rather, petitioner “challenges the decision of the

26 California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) finding him unsuitable for parole,” a claim which

27 is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011). (Id.

28 at 2–3.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended summarily dismissing the petition. (Id.

1 at 3.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on petitioner with notice that any

2 objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. (Id.) On July 19, 2021,

3 petitioner timely filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.)

4 In his objections, petitioner does not meaningfully address or object to the findings and

5 recommendations. Rather, petitioner pontificates on the meaning of justice and encourages the

6 court to reconsider its jurisprudence and definition of due process. (Id. at 2–5.) Thus, petitioner’s

7 objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.

8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s

10 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the

11 record and by proper analysis.

12 Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to

13 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. “[A] state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas

14 corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition,” and an

15 appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36

16 (2003); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only

17 with a certificate of appealability). Specifically, the federal rules governing habeas cases brought

18 by state prisoners require a district court issuing an order denying a habeas petition to either grant

19 or deny therein a certificate of appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A

20 judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial

21 showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must

22 indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Here, petitioner has not made

23 such a showing. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued.

24 Accordingly,

25 1. The findings and recommendations issued July 8, 2021 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted

26 in full;

27 /////

28 /////

1 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is summarily dismissed;

2 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

3 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a "

5 Li. wh F

Dated: _ August 3, 2021 wea rE

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.