(HC) Dean v. Robertson ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DE’SHAWN DEKKERIO DEAN, No. 2:18-cv-01287-TLN-GGH 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. ROBERTSON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner De’Shawn Dekkerio Dean (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 18 filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On April 20, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 22 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 35.) Neither 24 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The Court has reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards and finds the findings 26 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 27 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has 28 considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this 1 | decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 2 | Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28 3 | US.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 4 | constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of 5 || appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 6 | such certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 7 | procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 8 || jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 9 | ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 10 | claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 11 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the 12 | Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 35), the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of 13 | appealability is not warranted in this case. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 20, 2021 (ECF No. 35), are 16 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 17 2. Petitioner’s First Amended Petition (ECF No. 29) is DENIED; and 18 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 19 | 2253. 20 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | DATED: July 1, 2021 AN /) Thoke 5 Troy L. Nuhlep ] United States District Judge 26 27 28