(HC) Martin v. People of the 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 VERDELL MARTIN, No. 2:21-cv-2121 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondents. 16 17 By order filed March 1, 2022, petitioner’s habeas application was dismissed and thirty 18 days’ leave to file an amended application was granted. The thirty-day period has now expired, 19 and petitioner has not responded to the court’s order. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 21 court judge to this case; and 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 23 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner 1 | may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of 2 | the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district 3 || court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 4 || applicant). Where, as here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of 5 || appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 6 || debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of 7 || reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 8 | constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. 9 || McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within 10 || the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 11 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 | Dated: April 14, 2022 / aa / x ly a 13 CAROLYN K DELANEY 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 | 4 18 mart2121.fta.hab 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28