Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00832/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00832-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DeMarrea McCoy-Gordon
Petitioner
Pelican Bay State Prison
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMARREA MCCOY-GORDON,

Petitioner,

v.

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00832-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST CLAIMS

ECF No. 15

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ORDER TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT 

JUDGE

Petitioner DeMarrea McCoy-Gordon, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The matter is before the court for preliminary review 

under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to 

the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition 

unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 

918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

On October 31, 2019, we ordered petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust his claims in state court. ECF No. 15; see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(1)(A); Murray v. Schriro, 882 F.3d 778, 807 (9th Cir. 2018). We gave petitioner 30 

days to respond to the order to show cause. ECF No. 15. The time for responding to the order 

has passed and petitioner has failed to respond. Therefore, we find that petitioner has failed to 

Case 1:19-cv-00832-DAD-JDP Document 17 Filed 02/07/20 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

show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust his habeas claims in 

state court and recommend that the petition be dismissed. 

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 

court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases 

requires a district court to 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). 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). 

“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. 

Here, reasonable jurists would not find our conclusion debatable or conclude that 

petitioner should proceed further. Thus, the court should decline to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

Order

The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review the 

findings and recommendations.

Findings and Recommendations

We recommend that the court dismiss the petition. ECF No. 1. These findings and 

recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court judge presiding over this case under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District 

Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the service of the findings and 

recommendations, any party may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 

Case 1:19-cv-00832-DAD-JDP Document 17 Filed 02/07/20 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

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will then review the 

findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-00832-DAD-JDP Document 17 Filed 02/07/20 Page 3 of 3