(HC) Castaneda v. Muniz ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS RICARDO CASTANEDA, No. 1:19-cv-01327-DAD-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 W.L. MUNIZ, HABEAS PETITION FOR FAILURE TO PROESCUTE AND TO COMPLY WITH A 15 Respondent. COURT ORDER 16 (Doc. No. 13) 17 18 Petitioner Jesus Ricardo Castaneda is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 20 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302. 22 On October 10, 2019, the court granted petitioner’s request for a stay of this case pending 23 exhaustion of his claims in state court (Doc. No. 5), and on April 7, 2020, petitioner filed a 24 motion to lift the stay (Doc. No. 10), which the court granted on May 7, 2020 (Doc. No. 11). In 25 the court’s order lifting the stay, petitioner was directed to file an amended petition within thirty 26 (30) days. (Doc. No. 11 at 2.) Despite that order, petitioner did not file an amended petition or 27 otherwise communicate with the court. 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, on June 25, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed due to petitioner’s failure to obey 3 the court’s order directing him to file an amended petition and failure to prosecute this habeas 4 action. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner and 5 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after 6 service. (Id. at 3.) To date, petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so 7 has passed.1 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 9 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 12 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 13 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 14 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 15 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 16 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 17 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 18 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 19 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 20 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 21 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 22 would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 23 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 27 1 Both the May 7, 2020 order and the June 25, 2020 findings and recommendations were served on petitioner by mail at his address of record, and neither were returned to the court as 28 undeliverable. wOoOw 4:49 VV VELVET OMAR VR MMVUEEOCTEL tor POM □□□ □□□ FP OAyt Ve VI 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 25, 2020 (Doc. No. 13) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 5 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 8 Li. wh F Dated: _ August 11, 2020 wee TE OO 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:19-cv-01327

Filed Date: 8/11/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2024