(HC) Barton v. California Mens Colony ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM BARTON, No. 2:22-cv-01899-DAD-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY, THIS HABEAS PETITION DUE TO PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Respondent. AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 16 (Doc. No. 9) 17 18 19 Petitioner William Barton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 17, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations recommending that this federal habeas action be dismissed due to petitioner’s 24 failure to prosecute this action and failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 9.) Specifically, on 25 January 6, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order dismissing petitioner’s habeas petition with 26 leave to amend and requiring petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty (30) days of that 27 order. (Doc. No. 8.) Petitioner was warned that his failure to comply with that order may result 28 ///// 1 in the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2.) To date, petitioner has not filed an amended petition as 2 directed. 3 Accordingly, on February 17, 2023, the magistrate judge issued the pending findings and 4 recommendations recommending dismissal of this action due to petitioner’s failure to prosecute 5 and failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 9.) Those pending findings and recommendations 6 were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 7 fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) 8 Petitioner did not file a document purporting to be objections to the pending findings and 9 recommendations. Rather, on March 6, 2023, petitioner filed a document captioned “Statement 10 of the Case.” (Doc. No. 11.) The court has reviewed that document, and petitioner does not 11 assert any objections to the pending findings and recommendations therein or address their 12 substance in any way. Instead, that document merely restates the procedural history of this 13 action. (Id. at 6.) Accordingly, petitioner has not provided the court with any basis upon which 14 to reject the pending findings and recommendations. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 16 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 17 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 18 Additionally, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking 19 writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited 20 circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). Rule 21 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district court issue or deny a 22 certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth 23 Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). The court will 24 issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 25 states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 26 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 27 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, reasonable jurists would not find the court’s decision to dismiss the 28 ///// 1 | petition to be debatable or conclude that the petition should proceed further. Thus, the court 2 | declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 3 Accordingly, 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 17, 2023 (Doc. No. 9) are 5 adopted in full; 6 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 7 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 8 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 5, 2023 Dae A. 2, sel 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICY JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28