Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01093/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01093-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE HOSPITALS - COALINGA,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01093-DAD-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

(Doc. No. 6)

Petitioner Richard Scott Kindred is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 

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

302.

On January 29, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that the pending petition for federal habeas relief be denied due to lack of 

jurisdiction, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and failure to state a cognizable habeas 

claim. (Doc. No. 6 at 2.) However, the magistrate judge also notified petitioner that any denial of 

the petition would be without prejudice to him seeking relief by filing a civil right action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 4.) The findings and recommendations were served upon both

parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days 

Case 1:19-cv-01093-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

from the date of service of the order. No objections have been filed and the time in which to do 

so has now passed.

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 

a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 

absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 

under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 

(2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 

court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 

petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 

Cir. 1997). 

If, as here, a court denies a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only issue a 

certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 

establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 

deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 

petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The court therefore declines to issue 

a certificate of appealability.

/////

/////

Case 1:19-cv-01093-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 29, 2020 (Doc. No. 6), are

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied without prejudice to 

petitioner seeking relief by filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01093-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 3