Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01280/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01280-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fabian Felix
Petitioner
Robert Nueschid
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FABIAN FELIX,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT NUESCHID,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01280-LJO-SAB-HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, 

AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A 

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. On September 3, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition 

for writ of habeas corpus, wherein Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in 

which he was found guilty of distribution of a controlled substance and penalized with a 180-day 

loss of custody credit. (ECF No. 1). On October 16, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings 

and Recommendation to grant Petitioner leave to convert his habeas petition to a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 11). 

On December 11, 2019, the Court adopted the Findings and Recommendation and 

ordered Petitioner to notify the Court whether he would like to convert the habeas petition to a 

§ 1983 civil rights action within twenty days of the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 12). To 

date, Petitioner has failed to notify the Court, and the time for doing so has passed. Accordingly, 

the Court will dismiss the instant habeas action without prejudice to Petitioner refiling his claims 

in a § 1983 action. 

Case 1:19-cv-01280-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/24/20 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

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 as follows:

(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.

(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).

A court should issue a certificate of appealability if “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 & n.4 (1983)). 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 the issues presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed 

further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

///

Case 1:19-cv-01280-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/24/20 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner 

refiling his claims in a § 1983 action; 

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: January 23, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01280-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 3