Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00798/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00798-1/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

KHELBY CALMESE,

Petitioner,

v.

S. YOUNG, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-00798-LJO-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 12)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 11)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE 

CASE

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On November 20, 2019, the Magistrate Judge 

assigned to the case issued Findings and Recommendation to grant Respondent’s motion and 

deny the petition. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12.) This Findings and Recommendation was served upon all 

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the 

date of service of that order. On December 6, 2019, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. No. 13.) Respondent did not file a reply. 

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

Case 1:19-cv-00798-LJO-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 4
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

de novo review of the case. Petitioner raises several objections which the Court will address. 

First, Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Petitioner failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) Petitioner states he attempted to file his BP-11 

appeal, but for whatever reason, it was not transmitted to the appeals office. Assuming Petitioner 

exhausted his administrative remedies, it is clear he is not entitled to relief on his claims.

Petitioner concedes he is not entitled to credit for any time spent in custody from the time 

he was arrested on March 25, 2015, until March 25, 2016. (Doc. No. 13 at 2-3.) He claims, 

however, that he is entitled to credit for the time period from March 25, 2016, until April 17, 

2017, because that period of incarceration was not credited toward any sentence. (Doc. 13 at 3.) 

Petitioner’s contention is incorrect. That period of time was credited against his state sentence. 

As noted by the Magistrate Judge, a parole revocation hearing was held on March 13, 2015, and 

parole was revoked. (Doc. 11-2 at 31.) Petitioner was returned to state custody to serve the 

remainder of his eight-year term, with the maximum release date set for June 22, 2017. (Doc. 11-

2 at 13.) Petitioner is not entitled to credit against his federal sentence for this time period as that 

would constitute double credit, which is barred under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). See United States v. 

Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992).

Petitioner also complains that he did not receive a copy of Respondent’s motion to dismiss 

and therefore did not receive notice and an opportunity to respond. Petitioner did file objections 

to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, however, and the Court has considered 

all of his arguments. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has been given notice and 

opportunity to present his opposition to dismissal.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections, the Court 

concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record 

and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate 

Judge's analysis. 

In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A 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-

Case 1:19-cv-00798-LJO-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 4
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

336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability 

is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district 

judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit 

in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person 

charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's 

detention pending removal proceedings.

(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may 

not be taken to the court of appeals from—

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue 

or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 

appealability when a petitioner makes 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 finds 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 debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 

proceed further. Thus, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 20, 2019 (Doc. No. 12), is 

Case 1:19-cv-00798-LJO-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; 

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file; and,

5. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00798-LJO-SKO Document 14 Filed 01/06/20 Page 4 of 4