(HC) Randall v. RJ Donovan Correctional Facility, No. 2:2023cv01480 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/11/23 ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations in full and DISMISSING 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court DECLINES to issue COA. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VIRGIL DOUGLAS RANDALL, 11 12 13 14 15 No. 2:23-cv-01480-DAD-KJN (HC) Petitioner, v. RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION DUE TO PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER Respondent. (Doc. No. 8) 16 17 18 Petitioner Virgil Douglas Randall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 1, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened the pending petition and found 22 that it was deficient. (Doc. No. 3.) Petitioner was directed to file an amended petition addressing 23 the noted deficiencies, as well as an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma 24 pauperis or the appropriate filing fee, within thirty days. (Id. at 2.) Finally, petitioner was 25 cautioned that his failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this 26 action be dismissed. (Id. at 3.) 27 28 On September 11, 2023, petitioner filed a first amended petition (Doc. No. 6) but did not file either an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the filing fee as 1 1 required by the August 1, 2023 order. Accordingly, on October 3, 2023, the magistrate judge 2 issued the pending findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed 3 without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to comply with the court’s order that he file an 4 affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee. 5 (Doc. No. 8 at 1–2.) 6 The findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained notice that 7 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, 8 petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so has passed. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 10 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 11 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 13 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 14 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 15 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 16 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 17 denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 18 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 19 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 20 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 21 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 22 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 23 would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed without 24 prejudice to be debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 Accordingly, 2 1. 3 The findings and recommendations issued on October 3, 2023 (Doc. No. 8) are adopted in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 5 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 Dated: December 11, 2023 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
