Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lee Kelly Clarke, a Shasta County Jail inmate representing himself and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Eastern District of California on February 6, 2026. The case was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(17). The respondents were identified as Mike Johnson and others.
On March 20, 2026, the magistrate judge dismissed the petition because it was incomprehensible and failed to state any cognizable claim for habeas relief. That order gave Clarke thirty days to file an amended petition curing the deficiencies and warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal of the action. Although he was served with the order, he filed no amended petition within the time allowed.
On May 1, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's orders. The findings were served at his address of record with notice that objections were due within fourteen days, and none were filed. On July 2, 2026, Clarke did submit a ten-page document with forty-six pages of attachments.
The Court’s Holding
In an order dated November 1, 2026, District Judge Dale A. Drozd adopted the findings and recommendations in full after conducting a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Having reviewed the entire file, the court concluded that the findings were supported by the record and by proper analysis. It dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders, and directed the clerk to close the case.
In a footnote, the court addressed the July 2 filing. It said the document did not appear to be objections to the findings and recommendations, was incomprehensible like Clarke's earlier filings, and in any event gave no basis to reject the findings.
The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000), it explained that when a petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate should issue if jurists of reason would find it debatable both whether the procedural ruling was correct and whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. The court concluded that reasonable jurists would not find the dismissal without prejudice debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The order does not decide the merits of any habeas claim.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petitioner who is given leave to amend and warned that inaction may lead to dismissal, but files nothing within the time allowed, risks dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
- The dismissal is without prejudice, but the order does not say whether a new petition could be filed or whether limitations or other procedural bars would apply, so those questions remain open.
- A later filing that is incomprehensible and does not engage the findings and recommendations was not treated as objections and gave the court no basis to reject them.
- The court declined a certificate of appealability because it found its procedural ruling not reasonably debatable, and the order does not discuss any further avenue for review.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order with no precedential weight. It applies familiar rules to a routine situation: a court that has given a self-represented habeas petitioner a clear chance to fix an unintelligible petition may close the case when the petitioner does not respond.
The order shows how the court treats a procedural habeas dismissal under the Slack framework and how it handles a late, unresponsive filing after the objection period has run. Its practical effect is limited to ending this case, with the merits and any possible future filing left undecided.