(HC) Anthony L. Zeigler v. Fox ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY L. ZEIGLER, No. 2:18-cv-00578-TLN-DMC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT FOX, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Anthony L. Zeigler (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this 18 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On February 22, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within the time specified therein. (ECF No. 25.) No objections to the findings and 23 recommendations have been filed. 24 The Court has reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards and finds the 25 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's 26 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 | U.S.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 acertificate 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 proced ural 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. 25), 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 February 22, 2021 (ECF No. 25), are 16 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 17 2. Petitioner’s Petition fora Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; 18 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 19 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter Judgment and close this file. 20 ITIS SO ORDERED. 21 | DATED: April 6, 2021 22 /) 23 “ \/ fb 24 = NN _\__ Troy L. Nunley } 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28