Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00736-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ciolli
Respondent
Corey Williams
Petitioner

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

COREY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

CIOLLI, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:20-cv-00736-NONE-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. Nos. 11, 12)

Petitioner is a former federal prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 5, 2020, the assigned magistrate 

judge issued findings and recommendation to grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the pending 

petition as moot. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12.) Those findings and recommendations were served upon all 

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from 

the date of service of that order. To date, no party has filed objections. 

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis. 

In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A prisoner seeking a 

writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, 

Case 1:20-cv-00736-DAD-SKO Document 13 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 2
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

and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). A successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that is disguised as a 

§ 2241 petition requires a certificate of appealability. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th 

Cir. 2008); Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001). If a court denies a petitioner’s 

petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes 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 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)).

Here, the court finds 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 debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the court 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. The findings and recommendations, entered on October 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 12), are

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED AS MOOT; 

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 

of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE; and

5. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00736-DAD-SKO Document 13 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 2