The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ROBERT LEE JENKINS, JR., No. 2:25-cv-01184-DAD-AC (HC)
12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
14 D. CUEVA, THIS ACTION
15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 10)
16
17
18 Petitioner Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was
20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
21 302.
22 On April 30, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
23 recommending that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be dismissed for failing to state a
24 cognizable claim for habeas relief. (Doc. No. 10 at 3–5.) Specifically, the magistrate judge first
25 found that petitioner’s claim that his parole denial violated the Eighth Amendment because it
26 resulted in petitioner serving a disproportionate sentence was not cognizable because petitioner
27 was originally sentenced in state court to an indeterminate life sentence. (Id. at 4.) The
28 magistrate judge concluded that there is no clearly established federal law that continued
1 confinement following the denial of parole to an inmate serving an indeterminate life sentence
2 could violate the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) The magistrate judge then concluded that petitioner’s
3 remaining grounds failed to state cognizable federal claims because those claims were premised
4 on allegations that petitioner’s parole review was not conducted in compliance with California
5 state law. (Id. at 5.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and
6 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the
7 date of service. (Id. at 6.) On May 16, 2025, petitioner filed his objections to the findings and
8 recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.)
9 Petitioner’s objections largely reiterate arguments that the magistrate judge already
10 considered and appropriately rejected. (Id. at 2) (arguing that the denial of parole constitutes
11 excessive confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment). Petitioner also appears to object
12 on the ground that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment on the basis of a disability in
13 violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Id.) “If an ADA claim challenges
14 the validity or duration of confinement, the prisoner’s sole federal remedy is the writ of habeas
15 corpus.” Bogovich v. Sandoval, 189 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). Claims brought pursuant to
16 the ADA can be cognizable in the context of a denial of parole. See Rubio v. Woodford, No. 05-
17 cv-00638-LKK-DAD, 2009 WL 2424042, at *17 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2009) (considering a federal
18 habeas claim where the petitioner asserted that his denial of parole violated the ADA because the
19 Board had considered his substance use history). However, petitioner did not allege a violation of
20 the ADA in his petition nor has he alleged that he suffers from any particular disability. (See
21 Doc. No. 1.) Accordingly, this objection does not provide a basis upon which to reject the
22 pending findings and recommendations.
23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
24 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
25 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
26 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to
27 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute
28 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v.
1 | Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Ifa court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may
2 | only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the
3 | denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).. Where, as here, the court denies habeas
4 | relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court
5 | should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
6 || petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would
7 | find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.
8 | McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists
9 | would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be
10 | debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
1] For the reasons above,
12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 30, 2025 (Doc. No. 10) are
13 ADOPTED in full;
14 2. The operative petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED;
15 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
16 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
| Dated: _ April 7, 2026 Da A. 2, □□□
19 DALE A. DROZD
50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28