(HC) Martin v. Pogue ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED ANDREW MARTIN, No. 1:21-cv-01622-ADA-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 TYSON J. POGUE, et al., TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondents. (ECF No. 44) 16 17 Petitioner Jared Andrew Martin (“Petitioner”) is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 17, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendation 21 recommending that the second amended petition be dismissed as moot, pursuant to Younger v. 22 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. (ECF No. 23 44.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 24 objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days after service. (Id.) On March 2, 2023, the 25 findings and recommendation were returned as undeliverable with the notation that Petitioner was 26 not in custody.1 To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 27 1 Absent notice of a party’s change of address, service of documents at the prior address of the party is fully effective. 28 Local Rule 182(f). 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the findings 3 | and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 5 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 6 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 7 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 8 | § 2253. The court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate 9 | whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 10 | manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 11 further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 12 | 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 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 February 17, 2023, (ECF No. 44), are 18 adopted in full; 19 2. The second amended 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: _ May 30, 2023 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28