Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01590/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01590-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO JENKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

No. 1:23-cv-01590-KES-EPG (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Doc. 13

Petitioner Alonzo Jenkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 January 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner does not 

challenge his custody, but rather, a restitution order against him. Doc. 13. The findings and 

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and recommendations. Id. On 

February 8, 2024, petitioner filed timely objections. Doc. 14.

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

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 

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

Case 1:23-cv-01590-KES-EPG Document 18 Filed 12/13/24 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

The findings and recommendations are correct that the Court has jurisdiction to review a habeas 

petition only when the petition asserts that the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), and the petition here 

does not do so. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010). Indeed, petitioner concedes 

as much in his objections. Doc. 14 at 2 (“Petitioner is not challenging his conviction[] or plea. . . 

. [T]he Petitioner is [challenging] the excessive restitution fines given by the sentencing court.”). 

The Court therefore does not have jurisdiction to review the claim.

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

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 

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

allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 

U.S.C. § 2253. The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “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 & n.4 (1983)).

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the 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.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:23-cv-01590-KES-EPG Document 18 Filed 12/13/24 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 8, 2024, Doc. 13, are adopted in 

full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed;

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and

4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01590-KES-EPG Document 18 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 3