Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01213/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01213-2/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT T. BRITTON,

Petitioner,

v.

A. CORONA, et al.

Respondent.

No. 1:18-cv-01213-NONE-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

PETITION AS MOOT

(Doc. No. 7)

Petitioner Scott T. Britton, a former detainee at the Fresno County Jail 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. 

In his pending petition, although somewhat difficult to decipher, it appears petitioner 

challenges a sentence imposed upon in an underlying state court criminal prosecution and seeks 

no other forms of relief. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) However, the pending petition, filed September 7, 

2018, suggested that petitioner had fully served his sentence because he was scheduled for release 

in August 2018. (Id. at 2.) Because it did not appear that this court could grant petitioner any 

effective relief, the assigned magistrate judge ordered petitioner to show cause why the court 

should not dismiss this case as having been rendered moot. (Doc. No. 5.) On October 7, 2019, 

Case 1:18-cv-01213-DAD-JDP Document 8 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

the service of that order, mailed to Fresno County Jail, was returned to this court by the U.S. 

Postal Service as undeliverable with the indication that petitioner was no longer in custody. 

Under Local Rule 183(b), petitioner had 63 days to update his address of record with this court, or 

until December 16, 2019. Petitioner has failed to update the court with a change of address of 

record and has not otherwise responded to the order to show cause.

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

recommending the petition be dismissed as moot. (Doc. No. 7.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that objections were due within 

fourteen (14) days.1 (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. 

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

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 

 

1

 On February 21, 2019, the findings and recommendations served upon petitioner at his address 

of record were also returned to this court by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable with the 

indication that petitioner was no longer in custody. 

Case 1:18-cv-01213-DAD-JDP Document 8 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

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. 7) 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 1:18-cv-01213-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 3