1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS MADDOX, Case No. 1:19-cv-00851-NONE-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING

13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION

14 M. PARR, (Doc. Nos. 14, 16) 15 Respondent.

16 17 Petitioner Thomas Maddox, a federal prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, 18 petitioned for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) This 19 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. On April 7, 2020, respondent moved for dismissal of the petition. (Doc. No. 21 14.) On May 12, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 16.) The findings and 23 recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that objections thereto were due 24 within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) The time for filing objections has passed and 25 petitioner has not filed any objections to the pending findings and recommendations. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 27 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The magistrate judge concluded that 28 petitioner’s petition for bond hearing or for release from custody was now moot because 1 petitioner had since been removed to Lagos, Nigeria. (Doc. No. 46 at 3.) The magistrate judge 2 also considered potential collateral consequences to petitioner stemming from his past 3 confinement and found that there were none, and that any appellate challenge of the immigration 4 judge’s deportation order rested exclusive in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. (Id.) Based 5 on these findings, the magistrate judge recommended that respondent’s motion to dismiss be 6 granted without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court agrees 7 and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 9 a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 10 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 11 under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 12 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 13 court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 14 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 15 Cir. 1997). 16 If, as here, a court grants a motion to dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the 17 court may only issue a certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial 18 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial 19 showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that 20 matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 21 presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 22 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 23 In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 24 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 25 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 26 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 27 ///// 28 wOow 4:40 MARE VET MMU te POO Ie eT □□ VM VI

1 | petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The court therefore declines to issue 2 | acertificate of appealability. 3 Accordingly: 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 12, 2020 (Doc. No. 16) are 5 adopted in full; 6 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 7 14) is granted; 8 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; 9 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 10 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 11 purposes of closure and to close this case. 12 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ Dated: _ June 2, 2020 J aL Al 5 7 a 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28