(HC) Craig v. Adams ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN JOHN CRAIG, No. 2:21-cv-1308 KJM CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ADAMS et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 A recent court order was served on petitioner’s address of record and returned by the 18 postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which 19 requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice 21 for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 25 objections. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 26 and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of 27 appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 28 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a 1 | certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as here, a 2 || habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if 3 || the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 4 || was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable 5 || whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. 6 || Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 7 || (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 8 | the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 | Dated: March 8, 2022 □□ / del a 10 CAROLYN DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14] 1 crail308.33a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28