(HC) Reid v. Lake, No. 1:2019cv00747 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/2/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-00747-DAD-JDP (HC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. WARDEN S. LAKE, 15 (Doc. No. 7) Respondent. 16 Petitioner Kenneth Roshaun Reid is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. On September 26, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 22 recommendations recommending that the pending petition be dismissed as frivolous and for lack 23 of jurisdiction because petitioner does not claim his actual innocence and because he previously 24 had an unobstructed procedural shot to assert his habeas claims. (Doc. No. 7.) The findings and 25 recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were 26 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) To date, petitioner has not filed 27 objections, and the time period for doing so has passed. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 In addition, a prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to 5 appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain 6 circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Rule 11 7 Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district court issue or deny a certificate of 8 appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22- 9 1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the court 10 denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, 11 the court will issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable 12 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 13 reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 14 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 15 decision debatable or conclude that the petition should proceed further. Thus, the court declines 16 to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. 19 20 adopted in full; 2. 21 22 23 24 25 The findings and recommendations issued on September 26, 2019 (Doc. No. 7) are This petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as frivolous and for lack of jurisdiction; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
