1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WILFREDO MINA, No. 1:23-cv-01665-KES-SAB (HC) 11 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 12 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 13 JEFF MACOMBER, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 14 Respondent. (Doc. 13) 15 16 17 Petitioner Wilfredo Mina is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus brought pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 19, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to state a 22 cognizable claim. Doc. 13. The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and 23 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service 24 of the findings and recommendations.

. On January 2, 2024, petitioner filed timely 25 objections. Doc. 14. 26 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 28 Court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Petitioner’s objections assert that he can present a claim regarding unlawful fines and fees 2 in a habeas corpus proceeding because the Supreme Court addressed the unconstitutionality of 3 certain fines in Southern Union Co. v. United States,

(2012). Doc. 14 at 2. 4 However, even assuming petitioner is correct that the fine imposed on him was unlawful, a 5 habeas corpus petition is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge the imposition of a fine. Bailey 6 v. Hill,

, 980–81 (9th Cir. 2010). A habeas corpus petition must challenge a 7 conviction or a custodial sentence. See

at 978–79;

(a) (“The [court] shall 8 entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to 9 the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the 10 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” (emphasis added)). Petitioner’s challenge 11 to his fine is not a challenge to a conviction or custodial sentence and cannot be pursued through 12 a federal habeas petition.

(“[T]he remedy that [petitioner] seeks, the elimination or 13 alteration of a money judgment, does not directly impact—and is not directed at the source of the 14 restraint on—his liberty . . . [so there is no] jurisdiction over his habeas petition.”). 15 Petitioner’s objections otherwise fail to meaningfully address the findings and 16 recommendations, and instead appear to assert that he was denied the right to counsel. See Doc. 17 14. However, this claim is not asserted in his petition. See generally Doc. 1. 18 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 19 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 20 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 21 allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2253. The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 23 whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 24 manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 25 further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 27 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 28 determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should 1 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 Accordingly, 3 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 19, 2023, Doc. 13, are adopted 4 in full; 5 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 7 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 8 9 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ December 19, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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