(HC) Bolin v. State of California
ORDER ADOPTING 4 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Close Case; ORDER DECLINING to Issue a Certificate of Appealability, signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 9/14/2022. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PAUL C. BOLIN,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO
ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
(Doc. No. 4)
Petitioner Paul C. Bolin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 28, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that
recommended dismissing the petition as an unauthorized successive petition. (Doc. No. 4.) The
findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections
were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. No objections have been filed, and the time for
filing has expired.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court holds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether
a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no
absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed in
only certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003); 28 U.S.C. §
2253. Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the
underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain
procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a
reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or
that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id.
In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s
determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should
be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 28, 2022, (Doc. No. 4) are adopted
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed;
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and
4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 14, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?