(HC) West v. California Correctional Health Care Services ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN DANIEL WEST, No. 2:21-cv-00330-TLN-EFB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner John Daniel West (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 19 Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 16, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 22 were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 9.) On April 30, 24 2021, Petitioner filed a “Letter” regarding the medical treatment he is currently receiving at 25 Wasco State Prison and a supplemental “Exhibit” to his petition (see ECF Nos. 11, 12), but has 26 not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations. 27 The Court has reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards and finds the findings 28 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has 2 | considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this 3 | decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 4 | Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28 5 | U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 6 | constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of 7 | appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 8 | such acertificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 9 | procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 10 || jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 11 | ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 12 | claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 13 | 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the 14 | Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 9), the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of 15 | appealability is not warranted in this case. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 16, 2021 CECF No. 9), are ADOPTED 18 | IN FULL; 19 2. Petitioner’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; 20 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and 21 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 | DATED: July 1, 2021 ry /) 24 “ \/ of du 25 a ZA N\ Troy L. Nunley» } 26 United States District Judge 27 28