(HC) Kelly v. Horn et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES CARL KELLY,
Petitioner,
v.
PAT HORN, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 1:26-cv-05302 JLT EPG (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO
ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
(Doc. 14)
James Carl Kelly is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge performed a
preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
and found this action is duplicative of the petition filed in Case No. 1:26-cv-03164-JLT-EPG, in
which Petitioner also challenged his medical care. (Doc. 14 at 2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate
judge recommended the Court dismiss the petition. (Id. at 3.)
On July 31, 2026, the Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and
notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 14 at 3.) The Court advised
Petitioner that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th
Cir. 2014).) After being informed of a new address for Petitioner, the Court re-served the
Findings and Recommendations on August 12, 2026. To date, no objections have been filed.
Case 1:26-cv-05302-JLT-EPG Document 16 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.
Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations
are supported by the record and proper analysis.
The Court also finds a certificate of appealability should not issue. A petitioner seeking a
writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition,
and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-
36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural
grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate
of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it
to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in
dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. In the
present case, reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the petition should
be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Thus,
the Court ORDERS:
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 31, 2026 (Doc. 14) are
ADOPTED in full.
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as duplicative.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026_
Case 1:26-cv-05302-JLT-EPG Document 16 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2