(HC) Carroll v. Warden, No. 1:2021cv01813 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 6 Findings and Recommendations, Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Directing Clerk of Court to Close Case, and Declining to Issue Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 05/22/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREMAYNE CARROLL, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01813 JLT HBK (HC) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Docs. 1, 6) The assigned magistrate judge conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 18 Governing Section 2254 Cases. (Doc. 6.) The magistrate judge found Petitioner “does not 19 challenge the fact or length of … confinement.” (Id. at 3.) Instead, the magistrate judge found 20 Petitioner addressed only the conditions of confinement, which are “properly challenged in a civil 21 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Id., citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 22 (1973).) Further, the magistrate judge found the claims duplicative of another civil action filed by 23 Petitioner, Case No. 1:22-cv-00363-BAM. (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended 24 the petition be dismissed. (Id. at 4.) 25 Petitioner timely filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Findings and 26 Recommendations, in which Petitioner accused the Court of “shielding” the California 27 Department of Corrections” and restated the claimed civil rights violations asserted in his petition 28 for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 7.) Petitioner did not acknowledge that the petition under 28 1 1 U.S.C. § 2254 was not the proper mechanism to raise the civil rights violations. Similarly, 2 Petitioner did not address the finding that the civil rights claim is duplicative. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 4 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court 5 concludes that the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record 6 and proper analysis. 7 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 8 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 9 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas 10 petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 11 could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that 12 jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 13 further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the 14 petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 15 than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 16 U.S. at 338. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 17 18 Petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 19 encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the 20 denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 22 1. 23 The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 24, 2022, (Doc. 6), are ADOPTED in full. 24 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 25 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 22, 2022 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

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.