(HC)Bouras v. Martel ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE JOHN BOURAS, No. 2:17-cv-0649 TLN CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MICHAEL MARTEL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On January 11, 2021, petitioner was ordered to show cause why this action should not be 18 dismissed. Petitioner was warned that failure to respond to the order to show cause would result 19 in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time for responding to the order to show 20 cause has expired and petitioner has not responded. 21 Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the order to show cause was 22 returned, petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court 23 apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents 24 at the record address of the party is fully effective. 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 2 1. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed; and 3 2. This case be closed. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 6 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 7 | objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 8 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 9 | certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 10 case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 11 | deny certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as 12 || here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should 13 | issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 14 | district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 15 | debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris 16 | v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 17 | (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 18 | the nght to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YlIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 | Dated: March 17, 2021 dp. A. fe 20 CAROLYN K. DELANEY 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 1 1 25 bour0649.frs 26 27 28