Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01665/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01665-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeff Macomber
Respondent
Wilfredo Mina
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

WILFREDO MINA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER,

Respondent.

No. 1:23-cv-01665-KES-SAB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO 

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. 13)

Petitioner Wilfredo Mina is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 December 19, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to state a 

cognizable claim. Doc. 13. The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and 

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service 

of the findings and recommendations. Id. at 3. On January 2, 2024, petitioner filed timely 

objections. Doc. 14.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 

Court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Case 1:23-cv-01665-KES-SAB Document 16 Filed 12/19/24 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

Petitioner’s objections assert that he can present a claim regarding unlawful fines and fees 

in a habeas corpus proceeding because the Supreme Court addressed the unconstitutionality of 

certain fines in Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012). Doc. 14 at 2. 

However, even assuming petitioner is correct that the fine imposed on him was unlawful, a 

habeas corpus petition is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge the imposition of a fine. Bailey 

v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980–81 (9th Cir. 2010). A habeas corpus petition must challenge a 

conviction or a custodial sentence. See id. at 978–79; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“The [court] 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.” (emphasis added)). Petitioner’s challenge 

to his fine is not a challenge to a conviction or custodial sentence and cannot be pursued through 

a federal habeas petition. Id. at 981 (“[T]he remedy that [petitioner] seeks, the elimination or 

alteration of a money judgment, does not directly impact—and is not directed at the source of the 

restraint on—his liberty . . . [so there is no] jurisdiction over his habeas petition.”). 

Petitioner’s objections otherwise fail to meaningfully address the findings and 

recommendations, and instead appear to assert that he was denied the right to counsel. See Doc. 

14. However, this claim is not asserted in his petition. See generally Doc. 1.

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

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. 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. The 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 the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should 

Case 1:23-cv-01665-KES-SAB Document 16 Filed 12/19/24 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

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

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 19, 2023, Doc. 13, are adopted

in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01665-KES-SAB Document 16 Filed 12/19/24 Page 3 of 3