(HC) Hickman v. Unknown

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN DUANE HICKMAN, No. 2:22-CV-1825-DAD-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s [amended] petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1.

20 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case, it is plain that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.

24 In the petition, Petitioner states that he was convicted in 2016 of kidnapping of a child, forcible rape of a child, and criminal threats. See ECF No. 1, pg. 2. Petitioner states he was sentenced to 100 years to life in state prison. See id. Petitioner asks this Court to do a “full settlement and closure” regarding a secured debt as to which Petitioner states he is the creditor.

28 See id. at 3. Attached to the petition are various documents which Petitioner’s contends prove the || existence of the secured debt and his entitlement to funds as a creditor. See id. at 7-32. Petitioner || separately filed additional “financial documents” which he claims support the petition. See ECF || No. 16.

4 Petitioner’s claim, as best the Court can discern it, bears no connection to the || underling 2016 conviction. Petitioner’s petition contains no claims relating to the legality of the || 2016 conviction. Because Petitioner does not raise any challenge to the fact or duration of his || current incarceration, he fails to state a claim which is cognizable under § 2254. See Preiser v. | Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. || 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).

10 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s petition for | a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be summarily dismissed.

12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within 14 days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

19 | Dated: March 7, 2024 Co 20 DENNIS M. COTA 7] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE