1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT A. GIBBS, No. 2:23-cv-00424-DAD-CKD (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 SHASTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, HABEAS PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 14, 19) 16 17 18 Petitioner Robert A. Gibbs is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se with a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 30, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 14) be granted due to petitioner’s 23 release from custody in 2018 and dischargement from parole in 2020. (Doc. No. 19 at 1–2.) As 24 the magistrate judge noted, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to remedy improper 25 custody, meaning that the court cannot entertain petitioner’s original or amended petitions, both 26 filed in 2023. (Doc. Nos. 1, 10.) Further, as noted in the pending findings and recommendations, 27 the proper respondent to such a petition is a state officer with custody of the petitioner and 28 ///// 1 because the petitioner is not in custody or on parole, there is no proper respondent. (Doc. No. 19 2 at 1.) 3 On June 6, 2024, petitioner filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. 4 (Doc. No. 22.) However, those objections do not meaningfully address the deficiencies in his 5 habeas petition identified by the magistrate judge. In fact, petitioner even acknowledges in his 6 objections that “it might be that [his] instant habeas corpus petition before this court is not the 7 correct form to challenge [his] conviction.” (Id. at 4.) However, he asks the court regardless to 8 “aid [him] in any way possible to find an avenue for relief” from the convictions he suffered. (Id. 9 at 10.) Recognizing that petitioner has expressed frustration with his convictions and the 10 treatment he allegedly received in jail, as outlined in his amended writ and objections, the law 11 requires that the pending motion to dismiss be granted. 12 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 13 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 14 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 15 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 16 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 17 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. 18 Cockrell,

(2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 19 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 20 denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 21 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 22 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 23 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 24 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 25 McDaniel,

(2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 26 would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 27 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 30, 2024 (Doc. No. 19) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the amended petition (Doc. No. 14) is granted; 5 3. The operative petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 10) is dismissed; 6 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 7 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ” | Dated: _ June 14, 2024 Dab A. 2, sxe 10 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28