(HC) Agee v. Warden, FCI Mendota, No. 1:2022cv01424 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and ORDER Declining to Issue Certificate of Appealability signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 5/30/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Lawrence, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC AGEE, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 No. 1:22-cv-01424-ADA-SKO (HC) Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 5) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Respondent. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 19 20 Petitioner Eric Agee is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 21 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a 22 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On November 10, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 24 recommendations to dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 5.) Those findings and recommendations 25 were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed 26 within twenty-one (21) days after service. On December 7, 2022, Petitioner filed objections to 27 the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner’s objections restate the claims of his 28 complaint and, therefore, present no new grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 3 objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are 4 supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A prisoner seeking a 6 writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, 7 and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 8 335–36 (2003). Further, a certificate of appealability is required for a successive § 2255 motion 9 that is disguised as a § 2241 petition. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008); 10 see also Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001). The controlling statute in 11 determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings. (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from— 19 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or 20 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. 21 22 23 24 25 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 26 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 27 See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 28 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 2 1 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 2 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 3 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 4 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 5 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 6 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 7 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 8 proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 9 10 Accordingly, 1. 11 The findings and recommendations issued on November 10, 2022 (ECF No. 5), are adopted in full; 12 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; 13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 14 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 15 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 30, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.