(HC) McCoy v. Sacramento County Jail, No. 2:2022cv02182 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 05/18/2023 ADOPTING 10 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel; DISMISSING this action without prejudice and the Court DENIES the Certificate of Appealability as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. CASE CLOSED. (Rodriguez, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME ELI McCOY, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:22-cv-2182 DJC DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY. JAIL, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a 18 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 1, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 21 recommendations, which were served on Petitioner and contained notice to Petitioner 22 that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty 23 days. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations, but has 24 failed to state grounds for his objection. 25 26 27 28 Petitioner also seeks the appointment of counsel. Because petitioner’s case will be dismissed, the Court finds appointment of counsel inappropriate. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, 1 1 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 2 by the proper analysis. The Court clarifies for the record that Petitioner’s duplicative 3 case referenced in the findings and recommendations is 2:22-cv-01770-AC. The 4 Court has reviewed the complaint in that case and concludes the allegations are 5 duplicative. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 1, 2023, are adopted in 8 full; 9 2. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 13) is denied; 10 3. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and 11 4. The Court denies the Certificate of Appealability as Petitioner has not made 12 a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 13 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 Dated: May 18, 2023 Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.
