(HC) Oatis v. Warden ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRUMAINE OATIS, No. 2:23-cv-1526 TLN CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN, NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On August 7, 2023, the court ordered that petitioner pay the filing fee for this action or 18 submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days. Petitioner was warned that 19 failure to do so would result in dismissal. Petitioner has not responded to the court’s order.1 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of 21 habeas corpus be dismissed. 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 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 26 1 Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the court’s August 7, 2023 order was 27 returned, petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents 28 at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 2 || certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 3 || case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 4 | deny acertificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as 5 || here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should 6 || issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 7 || district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 8 || debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris 9 || v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 10 | (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 11 | the nght to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 || Dated: September 7, 2023 fi 20 } Kt | / , a he 13 CAROLYN K DELANEY 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 | 1 19 oatil526.ftp 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28