(HC) Bailey v. Warden

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

(HC) Bailey v. Warden

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANT EUGENE BAILEY, No. 2:23-cv-01087-KJM-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, FCI HERLONG, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of appeal of this court's 18 August 26, 2024 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner can 19 appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c); Fed. R. App.

20 P. 22

(b). 21 A certificate of appealability may issue under

28 U.S.C. § 2253

“only if the applicant has 22 made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(2). The 23 court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required 24 showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 25 For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s April 24, 2024 order and June 17, 2024 26 findings and recommendations and the court’s August 26, 2024 order, petitioner has not made a 27 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 //// ] Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that that the court decline to grant a 2 || certificate of appealability in this action. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 8 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 9 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 10 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 11 | v. Yést,

951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991). Datu EBL 13 || Dated: December 20, 2024 Lal "lig 7 -LZ2ACA? EDMUND F. BRENNAN 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown