Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00988/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00988-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antoine Douglass Johnson
Petitioner
J. Salazar
Respondent

Document Text:

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

ANTOINE DOUGLASS JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

J. SALAZAR,

Respondent.

No. 2:18-cv-00988 MCE AC P

ORDER

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this 

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF Nos. 1, 2. 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 February 25, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. See ECF No. 22. In 

response, petitioner has filed objections as well as what he has entitled a “motion for amended or 

additional findings.” ECF Nos. 23, 24.

The Court construes the motion for amended or additional findings as part of petitioner’s

objections to the findings and recommendations. In petitioner’s objections, he makes substantive 

arguments with respect to what he calls “the law of the case,” and argues that given its content, it 

Case 2:18-cv-00988-MCE-AC Document 28 Filed 03/17/20 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

was an abuse of discretion for the magistrate judge assigned to this action not to grant petitioner 

leave to amend. See generally ECF No. 23.

In the motion for amended or additional findings, petitioner asks the court to identify

which of the three trial court publications that are in the record contains the controlling meaning 

of “holds itself out.” See id. Petitioner asks that the Court make this an additional finding of fact, 

and asserts that doing so is necessary “to correct manifest errors or prevent manifest injustice 

where this Court disregards the law of the case concerning the controlling meaning of ‘holds itself 

out’.” See id. (citations omitted).

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, for 

the reasons stated below, the Court finds the findings and recommendations of the magistrate 

judge assigned to this action to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

As stated in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, this Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction over this matter. See ECF No. 22 at 2-3, 5. Specifically, petitioner has not 

been granted leave by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive Section

2255 motion, which is effectively what this action is. As a result, this Court is precluded from 

reviewing substantive law in petitioner’s case and from making a determination regarding the 

controlling meaning of the term “holds itself out.” Instead, it must dismiss this matter. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (stating if court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss 

action).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued February 25, 2020 (ECF No. 22), are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. Petitioner’s motion for amended or additional findings, filed March 4, 2020 (ECF No. 

24), is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction;

////

////

////

Case 2:18-cv-00988-MCE-AC Document 28 Filed 03/17/20 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

3. This petition is DISMISSED without prejudice;

4. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-00988-MCE-AC Document 28 Filed 03/17/20 Page 3 of 3