Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00393/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00393-2/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

RUSTY LEE SALDIVAR,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

FRESNO COUNTY,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-00393-KES-SAB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 

CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. 9)

Petitioner Rusty Lee Saldivar is a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 May 31, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

that recommended dismissing the petition for failure to exhaust. Doc. 9. On July 2, 2024, 

petitioner filed objections. Doc. 10.

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

Petitioner’s objections continue to argue that an appeal to the California Supreme Court would be 

futile and hopeless, id. at 1–2, but as the findings and recommendations explain, this is not an 

Case 1:24-cv-00393-KES-SAB Document 11 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

exception to the exhaustion requirement for pre-conviction § 2241 petitions, Doc. 9 at 2–3. 

Petitioner also argues that he was advised by his attorney not to file the appeal to the California 

Supreme Court and attempts to argue that this would render the assistance she gave him 

ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Doc. 10 at 2–3. However, this 

claim, too, is unexhausted, and cannot be considered by the Court at this stage.

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

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 825 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (“[A] state petitioner proceeding under § 2241 must obtain a COA where the target of 

the habeas petition arises out of process issued by a state court.”). 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. 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 determination 

that the petition should be dismissed debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed 

further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:24-cv-00393-KES-SAB Document 11 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 May 31, 2024, Doc. 9, are ADOPTED in 

full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

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 1:24-cv-00393-KES-SAB Document 11 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 3