(HC) Sandhu v. Sandhu ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAKSHMI SINGH SANDHU, No. 1:20-cv-00364-DAD-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 KAPUR CASTRO SANDHU, ACTION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 6) 16 17 Petitioner Lakshmi Singh Sandhu is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition 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 March 18, 2020, the assigned magistrate denied the petition for failure to present any 22 cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief and granted petitioner leave to file a First Amended 23 Petition. (Doc. No. 4.) After that order was repeatedly returned to the court as undeliverable, the 24 magistrate judge case issued findings and recommendations on June 18, 2020, recommending that 25 this action be dismissed due to petitioner’s failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and 26 recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were 27 to be filed within ten (10) days of service. (Id. at 2.) No objections have been filed, and the time 28 1 in which to do so has now passed. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 3 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 4 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 The court now turns to whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner 6 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 7 his petition, as an appeal is only allowed under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 8 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 9 Section 2254 Cases requires that a district court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when 10 entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. 11 Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 12 If, as here, a court denies relief to a habeas petitioner, the court may only issue a 13 certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 14 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 15 establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 16 should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 17 deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 18 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 19 In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 20 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 21 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 22 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 23 petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The court therefore declines to issue 24 a certificate of appealability. 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 4 OY VED PAE SINS MVOC Ia etre PY VI 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 18, 2020 (Doc. No. 6) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. This action 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: _ July 21, 2020 wea rE 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28