Bouras v. Martel

Filing 12

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/3/21 ADOPTING in full 11 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING 1 Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE JOHN BOURAS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

No. 2:17-cv-00649-TLN-CKD

ORDER

MICHAEL MARTEL,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner George John Bouras (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

17
18

an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was

19

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

20

302.

21

On March 17, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

22

which were served on Petitioner and which contained that any objections to the findings and

23

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 11.) Petitioner has not filed

24

any objections to the findings and recommendations.

25

Although it appears from the file that Petitioner’s copy of the Findings and

26

Recommendations was returned, Petitioner was properly served. It is the Petitioner’s

27

responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local

28

Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
1

1
2
3

The Court has reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards and finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has

4

considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this

5

decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

6

Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28

7

U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

8

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of

9

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why

10

such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on

11

procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that

12

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

13

ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

14

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.

15

2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the

16

Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 11), the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of

17

appealability is not warranted in this case.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 17, 2021 (ECF No. 11), are

20

ADOPTED IN FULL;

21

2. Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED;

22

3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. §

23

2253; and

24

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED: May 3, 2021

27
28
2

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge