1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLE M. ADAMIK, No. 2:24-cv-01889-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR HABEAS PETITION DUE TO COURT, et al., PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT Respondents. ORDERS 16 (Doc. No. 6) 17

18 19 Petitioner Nicole M. Adamik is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for 20 writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to

. The matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On June 24, 2024, petitioner filed the petition initiating this action. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) On 23 July 18, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge ordered petitioner to complete an in forma pauperis 24 application or pay the required filing fee within thirty days. (Doc. No. 4.) Petitioner did not 25 respond to the court’s order. Accordingly, on September 30, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered 26 petitioner to show cause why this habeas action should not be dismissed due to petitioner’s failure 27 to pay the required filing fee, to prosecute, and to comply with court orders. (Doc. No. 5.) 28 Petitioner again did not respond to the court’s order to show cause. 1 Accordingly, on November 5, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 3 petitioner’s failure to comply with the court’s orders and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. 4 No. 6.) The findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained notice that 5 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service.1 (Id. at 3.) To 6 date, petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so has passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 8 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 9 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 11 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 12 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. 13 Cockrell,

, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 14 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 15 denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 16 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 17 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 18 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 19 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 20 McDaniel,

(2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 21 would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 22 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 ///// 24 1 The service copy of the pending findings and recommendations was served by mail on 25 petitioner at her address of record but was returned to the court as “undeliverable, not here.” (See Doc. No. 6.) Petitioner was thus required to file a notice of her change of address with the court 26 no later than January 21, 2025. To date, petitioner has not filed a notice of her change of address 27 or otherwise communicate with the court. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective, and it is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the 28 court apprised of her current address at all times. 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 5, 2024 (Doc. No. 6) are 3 ADOPTED in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED, without 5 prejudice; 6 3. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 7 US.C. § 2253; and 8 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 25, 2025 Dae A. 2, pel 11 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28