(HC) Lucas v. Placer County Superior Court 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
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID LEE LUCAS,
Petitioner,
v.
PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
et al.,
Respondent.
No. 2:24-cv-01336-DC-AC (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 8)
Petitioner David Lee Lucas, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, filed an application for a
writ of habeas corpus challenging his commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. The
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 302.
On December 20, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein,
which were served on Petitioner and contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the
findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (Doc. No. 8.) On January
31, 2025, Petitioner filed untimely objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 9.)
The court reviewed Petitioner’s objections and finds they do not provide a basis upon which to
reject the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Case 2:24-cv-01336-DC-AC Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 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
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
analysis.
Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to
issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute
right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner's petition, the court may only
issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 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). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the
court's determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. Thus,
the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed on December 20, 2024 (Doc. No. 8) are
ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of a habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED;
3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 4, 2026	___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-01336-DC-AC Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2