Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01612/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01612-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Butte County
Respondent
Clarence Edward Harris
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

CLARENCE EDWARD HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

BUTTE COUNTY,

Respondent.

No. 2:24-cv-01612-DAD-CSK

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

HABEAS PETITION

(Doc. No. 4)

Petitioner Clarence Edward Harris is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 June 12, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for failing to state a cognizable claim for 

federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 4.) Specifically, the findings and recommendations concluded 

that the petition did not state a cognizable claim under § 2254 because petitioner is not in custody. 

(Id. at 3–4.)

Those findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id.) 

Case 2:24-cv-01612-DAD-CSK Document 7 Filed 12/09/24 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

To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in 

which to do so has now passed.

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 

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 

issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 

right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). 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). 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). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 

would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 

debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 4) are 

adopted;

2. The operative petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed, with 

prejudice;

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:24-cv-01612-DAD-CSK Document 7 Filed 12/09/24 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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01612-DAD-CSK Document 7 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 3