Opinion
CASE NO. C20-5663-JCC
01-25-2021
KEVIN A. STANFIELD, Petitioner, v. BOB FERGUSON, Respondent.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R) of the Honorable David W. Christel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, to deny Mr. Stanfield's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 13) and Mr. Stanfield's objections thereto (Dkt. No. 14). Having thoroughly considered the petition, the R&R, Mr. Stanfield's objections, and the balance of the record, the Court hereby OVERRULES Petitioner's objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, DENIES the petition, and DISMISSES this case with prejudice for the reasons explained herein.
The R&R recommends denying the petition because, while Mr. Stanfield may have owed a fine, he was not in custody at the time he filed his petition. (Dkt. No. 13 at 3-4.) Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter. Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 821 (9th Cir. 2009). Mr. Stanfield objects, restating his contention that a continuing duty to satisfy a court-imposed fine is sufficient to establish this Court's jurisdiction to hear his petition. (Dkt. No. 14 at 1-2.) But Mr. Stanfield provides no legal basis to support this contention in his objection, instead citing inapposite cases. (Id.) An argument without legal support does not "demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the [R&R's] assessment of [Mr. Stanfield's] claims debatable or wrong." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Mr. Stanfield's objections (Dkt. No. 14), ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 13), DENIES Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, DISMISSES this case with prejudice, and DENIES issuance of a certificate of appealability.
DATED this 25th day of January 2021.
/s/_________
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE