(HC) Wandick v. Central California Women's Facility

Opinion

KRYSTAL WANDICK, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00745-KES-HBK (HC) ) Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION v. ) FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE FACILITY, ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 1, 21) )

Petitioner Krystal Wandick is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as without merit, and that the Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Doc. 21. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. In addition, the parties were “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” Id. (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). On November 25, 2024, Petitioner filed objections largely restating the arguments made in her petition. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, she must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on [her] . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 23, 2024, Doc. 21, are ADOPTED in full. 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED. 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. g | SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ December 10, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE