(HC) Rivers v. Carr, No. 1:2019cv00292 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING 11 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; ORDER DENYING 12 Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment; ORDER Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and ORDER DECLINING to Issue a Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/22/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN WARREN RIVERS, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-00292-DAD-SAB (HC) v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MELISSA PARR, (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 15) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 purportedly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate 19 judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss 20 the pending petition be granted, petitioner’s motion for entry of default judgment be denied, and 21 the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner has 22 failed to satisfy the criteria to bring a § 2241 petition pursuant to the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2255(e). (Doc. No. 15.) The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and 24 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service 25 of that order. On October 24, 2019, petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 17.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 26 27 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 28 ///// 1 1 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 2 by proper analysis. 3 The assigned magistrate judge found that petitioner failed to establish that he did not have 4 an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his actual innocence claim. (Doc. No. 15 at 4.) 5 Petitioner objects that the legal basis for his claim did not arise until two years after he had 6 exhausted his first § 2255 motion, pointing to declaration signed by the alleged victim of 7 petitioner’s crime which is dated February 15, 2018. (Doc. No. 17 at 4.) However, petitioner 8 cannot proceed under § 2241 pursuant to the escape hatch or savings clause without presenting a 9 legal basis that did not arise until after he exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, 10 such as a change in the law. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In 11 determining whether a petitioner had an unobstructed procedural shot to pursue his claim . . . we 12 consider: (1) whether the legal basis for petitioner’s claim did not arise until after he had 13 exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion; and (2) whether the law changed in any way 14 relevant to petitioner’s claim after that first § 2255 motion.”) (internal quotations omitted). 15 Petitioner has failed to make that showing. 16 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 17 a certificate of appealability should issue. See id. at 958 (“Where a petition purportedly brought 18 under § 2241 is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 motion, the petitioner cannot appeal from the denial 19 of that petition without a COA.”). A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 20 entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in 21 certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To 22 obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner “must make a 23 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, . . . includ[ing] showing that reasonable 24 jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved 25 in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to 26 proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 27 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 28 ///// 2 1 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 2 determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 3 be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 Accordingly: 5 1. The findings and recommendation issued on October 11, 2019 (Doc. No. 15) are 6 adopted; 7 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is granted; 8 3. Petitioner’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 12) is denied; 9 4. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 10 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case; and 11 6. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 22, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.