Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00023/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00023-3/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

ROBEY KURT HAIRSTON,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID ZULFA,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-00023-DAD-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

(Doc. No. 12)

Petitioner Robey Kurt Hairston is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2554. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302.

On November 14, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice due to 

petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims by first presenting them to the state’s highest court and 

failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 12.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on petitioner with notice that any objections thereto were to be 

filed within fourteen (14) days of the service of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 2.) No 

objections were filed and the time for doing so has passed.

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

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

Case 1:19-cv-00023-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/14/20 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

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis.

In addition, having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court now 

turns to whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A state prisoner seeking a writ of 

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

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

(2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds 

without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of 

appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim 

of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

“Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of 

the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the 

petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. In the present case, the 

court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the petition should 

be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. 

Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 14, 2019 (Doc. No. 12) 

are adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice due to 

petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims by first presenting them to the highest 

state court and failure to state a claim; 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00023-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/14/20 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

Case 1:19-cv-00023-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3