1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN MARK VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 2:22-cv-00231-DC-DMC (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 EL DORADO PRISON HOLDING THIS ACTION FACILITY SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, 15 (Doc. No. 56) Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner John Mark Van den Heuvel is a parolee proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On November 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to 23 Petitioner’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and orders. (Doc. No. 56.) 24 In particular, Petitioner failed to comply with the court’s August 9, 2024 order directing 25 Petitioner to file a first amended petition within thirty days of that order (Doc. No. 54).1 The 26 1 The service copy of the August 9, 2024 order, which was mailed to Petitioner at his address of 27 record, was returned to the court as “Undeliverable, Unclaimed.” Pursuant to Local Rule 183 in effect at that time, Petitioner was required to file a notice of his change of address with the court 28 by no later than November 7, 2024, and he did not do so. 1 pending findings and recommendations were served upon the parties and contained notice that 2 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service.2 (Id. at 2.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 5 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 7 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 8 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. 9 Cockrell,

(2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only 10 issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of 11 a constitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on 12 procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a 13 certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states 14 a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 15 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the 17 court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. 18 Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 15, 2024 (Doc. No. 56) 21 are ADOPTED in full; 22 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; 23 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 2 The service copy of the pending findings and recommendations, which was mailed to Petitioner 28 at his address of record, was also returned to the court as “Unclaimed.” 1 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 4 | Dated: _ February 6, 2025 EIU os Dena Coggins 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28