(HC) Williamson v. Adams ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VANESSA KAY WILLIAMSON, No. 2:21-cv-1210 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 DARRYL ADAMS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 On July 14, 2021, petitioner was ordered to file a request to proceed in forma pauperis or 18 to pay the appropriate filing fee within thirty-days. The thirty-day period has now expired, and 19 petitioner has not responded to the court’s order, has not filed a request to proceed in forma 20 pauperis, and has not paid the appropriate filing fee. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 22 court judge to this case; and 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In the objections petitioner 1 | may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of 2 | the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district 3 || court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 4 || applicant). Where, as here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of 5 || appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 6 || debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of 7 || reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 8 | constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. 9 || McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Any response to the objections shall be served and filed 10 || within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 11 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 12 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 | Dated: August 24, 2021 / ae □□ / a Ly a 4 CAROLYN K DELANEY 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 | 4 19 willl 210. fifp 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28