Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00505/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00505-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dave Davey
Respondent
Frank Lee Dearwester
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVE DAVEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00505-SAB-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, 

AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States 

Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 4).

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” By statute, federal courts “shall entertain 

an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the 

judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution 

or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “[T]he second use of „in custody‟

Case 1:16-cv-00505-SAB Document 5 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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

in the statute requires literally that the person applying for the writ is contending that he is „in 

custody‟ in violation of the Constitution or other federal laws.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 

(9th Cir. 2010). See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 439 n.3 (2000) (“Habeas corpus 

proceedings are available only for claims that a person „is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.‟”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). A claim is 

cognizable in habeas when a prisoner challenges “the fact or duration of his confinement” and 

“seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its duration.” Preiser 

v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of confinement. McCarthy 

v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141–42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499.

In the instant petition, Petitioner claims that prison officials deprived him of 

approximately two-thirds of his property, including legal documents and transcripts from his 

criminal trial, upon his move to the Administrative Segregation Unit on January 10, 2016. (ECF 

No. 1 at 3).1Petitioner is requesting the Court to issue orders to various courts to provide 

Petitioner with copies of all case documents and available transcripts (Id. at 4). Petitioner does 

not challenge any aspect of his conviction or sentence or the fact or duration of his confinement.

As Petitioner does not assert that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution in the instant 

petition, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, and this petition must be dismissed.

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

question of whether a certificate of appealability should issue. See Rule 11, Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement 

to appeal a district court‟s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain 

circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). The controlling statute in 

determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 

2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to 

review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which 

the proceeding is held.

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-00505-SAB Document 5 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a 

proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another 

district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a 

criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of 

such person‟s detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of 

appeals from–

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which 

the detention complained of arises out of process issued by 

a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 

only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 

indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing 

required by paragraph (2).

If a 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 Court‟s 

determination that Petitioner‟s federal habeas corpus petition should be dismissed debatable or 

wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00505-SAB Document 5 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case; and

3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00505-SAB Document 5 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 4