(HC) Christensen v. Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 CHAD ANDRE CHRISTENSEN, No. 2:24-cv-0979-TLN-DMC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On May 23, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Petitioner, and which contained notice that Petitioner may file objections within 22 the time specified therein. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner filed objections to the findings and 23 recommendations, which the Court considered. (ECF No. 6.) 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has 2 | considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this 3 | decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 4 | Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28 5 | U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 6 | constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of 7 | appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 8 | such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 9 | procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 10 || jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 11 | ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 12 | claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 13 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). For the reasons 14 | set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the Court finds that issuance of 15 | acertificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 17 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on May 23, 2024 (ECF No. 5), are 18 ADOPTED IN FULL; 19 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED 20 without prejudice; 21 3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; 22 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 23 | Date: August 5, 2024 24 /) \ ff i J Vim

07 Troy L. Nuhlep ] United States District Judge 28