William Dale Carman v. Kathleen N. Ratliff
William Dale Carman v. Kathleen N. Ratliff
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM DALE CARMAN, No. 2:24-cv-03755-DAD-AC (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 14 KATHLEEN N. RATLIFF, RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 1, 10, 15) 16
17 18 Petitioner, now a state court prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of 19 habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 15, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss the pending petition (Doc. No. 10), be 23 granted. (Doc. No. 15.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that because at the time the 24 pending petition for federal habeas relief was filed petitioner was awaiting resentencing following 25 a remand for that purpose by the California Court of Appeal, his judgment of conviction was not 26 yet final. (Id. at 5.) In addition, the magistrate judge reviewed the four requirements for 27 application of abstention under Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37(1971), found that all four were 28 met here, and concluded that petitioner had made no showing of bad faith, harassment or other 1 extraordinary circumstances that would make federal court abstention inappropriate. (Id. at 3–6.) 2 In recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss on Younger abstention grounds be granted, 3 the magistrate judge noted that the dismissal of the pending petition should be without prejudice 4 and that the applicable statute of limitations for the filing of a federal habeas petition under 28
5 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) had not begun to ran because petitioner’s judgment of conviction was 6 then not yet final. (Id. at 5–6.) 7 The pending findings and recommendations were served upon the parties and contained 8 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 9 6.) Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations and the time in which to 10 do so has passed. 11 In accordance with the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 12 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 13 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 Having concluded that the pending petition must be denied, the court also declines to issue 15 a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to 16 appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 17 Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 335-36(2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 18 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 19 denial of a constitutional right.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 20 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 21 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 22 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 23 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 24 McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484(2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 25 would not find the court's determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 26 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 15) are adopted; 3 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED; 4 3. That the petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 5 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 6 § 2253. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ September 19, 2025 Dal A. 2, sxe 9 DALE A. DROZD 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown