(HC) Oskuie v. EOP ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAYRAN MOHAMMAD OSKUIE, No. 2:22-cv-1107 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 EOP, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 On June 30, 2022, petitioner was ordered to file a request to proceed in forma pauperis or 18 pay the appropriate filing fee within thirty days. Petitioner was warned that failure to do so 19 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty-day period has now 20 expired, and petitioner has not responded to the court’s June 20, 2022 order. 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, petitioner may file written 27 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 28 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 1 | certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 2 || case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 3 || deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as 4 || here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should 5 || issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 6 || district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 7 || debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris 8 | v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 9 || (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 10 || the nght to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 | Dated: August 10, 2022 / aa / x ly a 2 CAROLYN K.DELANEY 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 | 4 7 oskul 107. fifp 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28