Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00569/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00569-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
G-4-S Security
Respondent
Olivia Magallanes-Castro
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLIVIA MAGALLANES-CASTRO, No. 2:14-CV-0569-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

G-4-S SECURITY,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the

action. 

On October 14, 2014, the court directed petitioner to show cause in writing within

30 days why this petition should not be summarily dismissed. The court stated:

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case,

it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Petitioner

states that she was injured when she was being transported to court for an

immigration hearing. Petitioner adds: “We crashed. This is negligence on

1

Case 2:14-cv-00569-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/21/15 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

his part.” Given the entirety of petitioner’s claim, it is clear that petitioner

seeks damages for injuries she claims were caused due to the negligence of

the named respondent, G-4-S Security. 

A cognizable habeas corpus claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

arises when a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either

the fact of confinement or the duration of confinement – and the relief he

seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate

release. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal

v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa

Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In the instant case,

petitioner alleges facts consistent with a state law tort claim based on

negligence. Because the facts alleged in this case do not relate to the fact

or duration of petitioner’s confinement, the matter is not the proper subject

of a petitioner under § 2254. 

Petitioner was warned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 110 that failure to

respond to the court’s order could result in dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution as well

as the reasons outlined above. To date, petitioner has not responded to the court’s order to show

cause. 

Therefore, given petitioner’s lack of prosecution in addition to the reasons

outlined in the court’s order to show cause, the court finds that summary dismissal of this

petition is appropriate. 

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the

court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before petitioner can appeal

this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.

22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under

28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why

such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed

on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: 

(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

2

Case 2:14-cv-00569-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/21/15 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

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775,

780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). 

For the reasons set forth in the court’s October 14, 2014, order to show cause, the court finds that

issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is summarily dismissed;

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

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 

DATED: May 21, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:14-cv-00569-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/21/15 Page 3 of 3