Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01021/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01021-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

MANUEL DE JESUS LOPEZMIRANDA,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN MERLAK,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01021-NONE-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

(Doc. No. 8)

Petitioner Manuel De Jesus Lopez-Miranda, a federal prisoner proceeding without 

counsel, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) 

This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On February 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 8.) The 

findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections 

thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) The time for filing objections has passed 

and petitioner failed to do so. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Case 1:19-cv-01021-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 03/04/20 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

In his pending petition, petitioner claims that the circumstances of his confinement violate 

his right to proper medical care; stating that prison officials at his place of confinement did not 

provide him adequate medical care to treat his hiatal and umbilical hernias over a period of fifteen 

months. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) As the findings and recommendations correctly conclude, this claim 

is not cognizable in this habeas corpus action but rather may be pursued only as a claim brought 

in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) The findings and 

recommendations also correctly explain that if deemed appropriate under the circumstances this

court may recharacterize a habeas corpus petition as a claim under § 1983, so long as the court 

warns the petitioner of the consequences of doing so and provides an opportunity for petitioner to 

withdraw the motion. (Id.) Here, however, the magistrate judge correctly reasoned that 

recharacterization of the pending petition is not appropriate under the circumstances of this case 

because the allegations in the petition are too conclusory to state a cognizable § 1983 claim as 

currently pled and because petitioner has not identified any particular individual who directly 

committed the acts or omissions that allegedly violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment.

1

 

(Id. at 2–3.) 

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 dismisses 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

 

1 The magistrate judge also forewarned petitioner that filing a § 1983 action would require 

payment of a higher filing fee, albeit over time by way of deductions from his trust account. 

(Doc. No. 8 at 3.) In addition, petitioner was provided with a § 1983 complaint form. (Id.) 

Case 1:19-cv-01021-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 03/04/20 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

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.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 7, 2020 (Doc. No. 8) are

adopted in full;

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

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

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 

purposes of closure and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01021-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 3