Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01075/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01075-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. Oregel
Respondent
Albert Dennis Sherrod
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

ALBERT DENNIS SHERROD,

Petitioner,

v.

E. OREGEL,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01075-NONE-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

PETITION 

(Doc. No. 16)

Petitioner Albert Dennis Sherrod, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this 

action, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302. 

On February 14, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 16.) The findings and recommendations 

were served on petitioner and contained notice that objections were due within fourteen (14) days. 

(Id.) The time for filing objections has passed and petitioner has failed to do so.1 

 

1 On February 28, 2020, petitioner notified this court of his intention to raise the claims in the 

instant petition in a forthcoming complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. No. 17.)

Case 1:19-cv-01075-DAD-JDP Document 18 Filed 03/18/20 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Petitioner states that Peace Officer Oregel violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment 

rights by filing a “bogus” disciplinary report against him. (Doc. No. 1 at 9, 20.) He claims that 

defendant Oregel saw another inmate attack him in an incident that caused petitioner “serious 

brain damage.” (Id.) Because petitioner does not argue that the disciplinary report increased his 

sentence and does not in any other way challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, habeas 

relief is unavailable to him based on these allegations. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (explaining challenges to the validity of confinement or to particulars 

affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus).2

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 

a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 

absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 

under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 

(2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 

court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 

petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 

Cir. 1997). 

If, as here, a court dismisses a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court may only 

issue a certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made 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, 

 

2 While a court may recharacterize a habeas petition into a § 1983 claim under certain 

circumstances, Nettles, 830 F.3d at 936, plaintiff’s stated intent to file a separate § 1983 action 

(see Doc. No. 17) makes doing so unnecessary.

Case 1:19-cv-01075-DAD-JDP Document 18 Filed 03/18/20 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

484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

In the present case, the court concludes 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 wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 

petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further with this habeas action. The court 

therefore declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 20, 2020 (Doc. No. 16) are 

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 

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

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

purposes of closure and to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01075-DAD-JDP Document 18 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 3