Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01339/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01339-3/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

GARY FRANCIS FISHER,

Petitioner,

v.

CDCR,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01339-DAD-JLT (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

(Doc. No. 11)

Petitioner Gary Francis Fisher (also known as Gary Dale Barger and Sonny Barger) is a 

state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 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 October 15, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that the pending petition (Doc. No. 1) be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 11.) Specifically, the findings and recommendations concluded that the 

pending petition is a second or successive petition and that petitioner has not first obtained leave 

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed with such a petition as is required. (Id. at 1–

2.) The findings and recommendations were served by mail on petitioner at his address of record

on October 15, 2019 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 

Case 1:19-cv-01339-DAD-JLT Document 12 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

twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 3.) On October 21, 2019, that service copy of the 

findings and recommendations was returned to the court as undeliverable, return to sender, 

attempted - not known, not at facility. Petitioner was required by rule to file a notice of change of 

address with this court by December 19, 2019, and he did not do so. No objections to the pending 

findings and recommendations have been filed with the court, and the time for doing so has 

expired. Petitioner has also failed to file a notice of change of address with the court as required, 

or otherwise communicate with the court regarding this action following the issuance of the 

pending findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) 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.

Having determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, 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 allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 

(2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (permitting habeas appeals from state prisoners only with a 

certificate of appealability). 

Where, as here, “the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the 

prisoner’s 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). But 

“[w]here a plain procedural bar is present . . . a reasonable jurist [cannot] conclude either that the 

district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed 

further.” Id. Because the petitioner’s pending application is clearly barred on jurisdictional 

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

/////

/////

Case 1:19-cv-01339-DAD-JLT Document 12 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

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 15, 2019 (Doc. No. 11) are 

adopted in full;

2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction because it is an unauthorized second or successive petition; 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01339-DAD-JLT Document 12 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3