(HC) Clark v. Allison

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTOPHER CHARLES CLARK, No. 2:23-cv-1524 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND KATHLEEN ALLISON, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent.

17 On August 29, 2023, petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended petition was granted. The thirty-day period has now expired, and petitioner has not filed an amended petition.

20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case; and 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this || case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or || deny acertificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as || here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should || issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the || district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it || debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris || v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 | (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive || the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10 | Dated: October 12, 2023 / ae □□ / a Ly a i CAROLYN K DELANEY 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1S | 4 16 clar1524.fta