1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL JOHN VERA, Case No. 22-cv-02426-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL: 9 v. DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on April 20, 2022. Dkt. No. 1. That 14 same day, the Clerk of the Court informed petitioner that this action was deficient because he had 15 not submitted an in forma pauperis application or paid the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. The Court 16 informed petitioner that he needed to correct the deficiency within twenty-eight days from the date 17 of the notice to avoid dismissal of this action. Dkt. No. 2. The deadline has passed, and petitioner 18 has not submitted the required documents. The Court also notes that it appears that petitioner is 19 no longer in custody. See Dkt. Nos. 8, 9. 20 The Court therefore DISMISSES this action without prejudice. Because this dismissal is 21 without prejudice, petitioner may move to reopen the action. Any such motion must be 22 accompanied by either payment of the full filing fee or a complete in forma pauperis application. 23 A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes “a substantial 24 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). This standard requires 25 the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of 26 his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 27 encouragement to proceed further.” See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). The 1 faith.” Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). Reasonable jurists would not disagree 2 || with the Court’s conclusion or find that this case should proceed further. Accordingly, a 3 certificate of appealability is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: October 28, 2022 6

= i % oN 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28