(HC) Bolin v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL C. BOLIN, No. 1:22-cv-00670-ADA-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF 15 Respondent. APPEALABILITY 16 (Doc. No. 4) 17 18 Petitioner Paul C. Bolin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 28, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that 22 recommended dismissing the petition as an unauthorized successive petition. (Doc. No. 4.) The 23 findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections 24 were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. No objections have been filed, and the time for 25 filing has expired. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 27 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court holds the findings 28 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 2 | acertificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 3 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed in 4 | only certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 5 || 2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the 6 | underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of 7 | reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 8 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 9 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain 10 | procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 11 | reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 12 | that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Jd. 13 In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 14 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 15 | be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 Accordingly: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 28, 2022, (Doc. No. 4) are adopted 18 in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 21 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 23 94 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: _ September 14, 2022 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28