Opinion
2:22-cv-02132-FWS-PD
06-10-2022
MOSES CLARK, Petitioner, v. GLEN E. PRATT, [1] Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records on file, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Petitioner's Objections to the Report.
In his Objections, Petitioner does not challenge any portion of the Report. Instead, he refers to a motion to disqualify that he filed in a civil rights action, [Clark v. Gamble, No. 22-00641-JVS (PD), ECF No. 6 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 24, 2022)], and argues that the Magistrate Judge and the District Judge should be disqualified. [See Dkt. No. 6 at 1.] The Court has already denied the motion to disqualify in that case [see Clark, No. 22-00641-JVS (PD), ECF No. 7], and Petitioner asserts no new facts or arguments to show why disqualification is warranted in this one. Thus, even if the Court were to construe Petitioner's Objections as a motion to disqualify, the Court would deny the motion for the same reasons it denied the corresponding motion to disqualify in his civil rights action. [See Clark, No. 22-00641-JVS (PD), ECF No. 7.]
Petitioner appealed the denial of the motion to disqualify. [See Clark, No. 22-00641-JVS (PD), ECF No. 9.] On May 27, 2022, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as “frivolous.” [See id., ECF No. 14.]
Having reviewed all the relevant materials, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Court accepts the Report and adopts it as its own findings and conclusions. 2. The Petition is denied, and for the reasons set forth in the Report, grounds one and two in the Petition are dismissed with prejudice, and ground three is dismissed without prejudice. 3. For the reasons stated in the Report, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).