Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01487/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01487-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Lake
Respondent
Cecil Dewitt Nelson
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

CECIL DEWITT NELSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN LAKE, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01487-DAD-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

(Doc. No. 6)

Petitioner Cecil Dewitt Nelson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to 

a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 22, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that the petition be denied for lack of jurisdiction because 

petitioner (1) does not present a claim of actual innocence and (2) does not contend that he did 

not have an unobstructed procedural shot to assert his habeas claims, both of which requirements 

must be met when a federal prisoner challenges the legality of his detention under § 2241 as 

opposed to § 2255. (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and recommendations contained notice that any 

objections thereto were to filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 6.) Petitioner has not 

filed objections, and the time in which to do so has since expired. 

Case 1:19-cv-01487-DAD-SKO Document 10 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 2
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)(C) 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.

Having concluded that the pending petition must be denied, the court now turns to 

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (“Where a petition purportedly brought under § 2241 is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 

motion, the petitioner cannot appeal from the denial of that petition without a COA.”) (citing

Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1006–07 (9th Cir. 2001)). A petitioner 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); 28 

U.S.C. § 2253. To obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner 

“must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, . . . includ[ing] showing 

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, 483–84 (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 the pending petition should be 

denied to be debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. 

For the reasons set forth above,

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 6) are adopted in full;

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

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and

4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01487-DAD-SKO Document 10 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 2