1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMMIE L. PAGE, No. 1:25-cv-00718 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS (Docs. 15, 17) 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 14 JANINE WALLACE, RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 7) 15 Respondent. ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 16 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 17 ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 18 ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 19 20 Sammie L. Page has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

2241, alleging that his ongoing pretrial detention at Coalinga State Hospital and re-commitment 22 proceeding pending in the Alameda County Superior Court pursuant to California’s Sexually 23 Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”)1 violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; and that his 24 federal rights to effective assistance of counsel, due process, equal protection, and access to 25 habeas corpus have been denied in relation to the Alameda County SVPA re-commitment 26 proceeding and a related state habeas corpus proceeding recently dismissed on abstention grounds 27

28 1 Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 131518. 1 in Fresno County Superior Court.2 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 2 pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 3 On June 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the 4 petition be dismissed without prejudice to refiling after the SVPA re-commitment proceeding 5 challenged herein, including appeal, are completed. (Doc. 7). The Court served the Findings and 6 Recommendation on Petitioner and notified him that any objections were due within 21 days. 7 (Id.). On June 30, 2025, Petitioner filed objections. (Doc. 10). 8 As noted by the Magistrate Judge in the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner’s 9 Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment challenges to pretrial detention and the re-commitment 10 proceeding including as related to delay, and invalid, insufficient and stale probable cause, are an 11 abuse of the writ because these claims previously were rejected by the Court. (See Doc. 7 at 4-5 12 citing 28 U.S.C. 2244(a); Page v. King,

(E.D. Cal. June 9, 2020), report and 13 recommendation adopted,

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2020), aff'd sub nom. Sammy L. 14 Page, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Audrey King, Acting Exec Dir, CA Dept of Mental Health, 15 Respondent-Appellee,

(9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2021)); see also Dunlap v. Arviza, 16

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2025

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2025) (“The abuse of writ doctrine codified under § 2244(a) 18 applies in § 2241 proceedings[.]”); Wilson v. Wrigley,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19 7, 2008) (same). 20 As the Magistrate Judge further noted, Petitioner’s newly asserted federal claims raising 21 denial of effective assistance of counsel, due process, equal protection, and access to habeas 22 corpus in relation to his re-commitment proceeding pending in Alameda County Superior Court 23 and his related (dismissed) habeas corpus proceeding in Fresno County Superior Court,3 are 24 properly the subject of Younger abstention. (See Doc. 7 at 5-6, citing Younger v. Harris,

26 2 Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 22CRWR686854.

27 3 Petitions for review of the Fresno County Superior Court dismissal order were summarily denied. See California Court of Appeal–Fifth Appellate District Case No. F089467; California 28 Supreme Court Case Nos. 290063, 290066. 1 37, 43-54 (1971)).4 2 Petitioner’s objections, which consist of conclusory argument and string citations largely 3 untethered to the facts and circumstances of the case, fail to persuade otherwise. (See Docs. 10, 4 14, 16). For example, Petitioner makes no sufficient proffer in avoidance of successiveness 5 principles or in support of functional suspension of federal habeas corpus. Petitioner’s federal 6 claims raised by ongoing pretrial detention have been reviewed and rejected. Petitioner retains the 7 opportunity to raise federal and habeas claims in the ongoing SVPA re-commitment proceeding 8 in the Alameda County Superior Court. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43–54; Middlesex Cnty. Ethics 9 Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n,

(1982); Sprint Communications, Inc. v. 10 Jacobs,

(2013). Petitioner’s re-argument of the underlying petition and his 11 disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, are not a basis for 12 objection. 13 Additionally, the Court denies Petitioner’s pending motions for relief. Petitioner’s motion 14 that the Court reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s refusal to appoint counsel including in aid of the 15 petition and unspecified supplemental objections (Doc. 15), is denied because it is unsupported by 16 any proffer of error or action contrary to law, and for the reasons stated. See also

636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 303. Petitioner’s motion for a determination of matters pending with the 18 Court (Doc. 17), is denied because it is moot with issuance of this order. 19 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 20 case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 21 Recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.5 22 Finally, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.6 A prisoner seeking a writ 23 4 The Court takes notice of the docket in People v. Page, Alameda County Superior Court Case 24 No. 131518, which shows that a probable cause hearing is set for December 4, 2025. See https://publicrecords.alameda.courts.ca.gov/CalendarSearch/ (last visited November 13, 2025); 25 Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate 26 determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 5 The Court has considered the matters of which Petitioner seeks judicial notice. (See Docs. 14, 27 16).

28 6 The Court notes that Petitioner, in his objections, requests a certificate of appealability as to all 1 of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s dismissal of his petition, 2 and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335- 3 336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 4

, which provides as follows:

5 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 6 appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

7 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 8 trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 9 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 10 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

11 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 12 court; or

13 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

14 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 15 right.

16 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 17 18 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 19 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 20

(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 21 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 22 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 23 encouragement to proceed further.’ ” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting 24 Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1983), superseded by statute as stated in Slack). 25 Here, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the 26 denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable 27

28 claims in the petition. (See Doc. 10 at 4-5). 1 | jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas 2 | corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court 3 | declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. Petitioner’s motions (Docs. 15, 17) are DENIED. 5 2. The Findings and Recommendation issued on June 13, 2025, (Doc. 7), are 6 ADOPTED in full. 7 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. 8 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 9 5. A certificate of appealability is DECLINED. 10 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _November 17, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28