Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01472/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01472-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY FRANCIS FISHER,

Petitioner,

v.

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01472-LJO-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

UNAUTHORIZED SUCCESSIVE PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION

ECF No. 7

Petitioner Gary Francis Fisher, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The court has referred this matter to a magistrate 

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 26, 2019, the assigned 

magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the court dismiss the petition as 

successive and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 7. These findings and 

recommendations were mailed to petitioner at his last known address, the Atascadero State 

Hospital. On October 4, 2019, the service of the findings and recommendations to petitioner was 

returned undeliverable with an indication that the petitioner was no longer at that facility. 

Petitioner was given until December 12, 2019 to update his address. Petitioner has not updated 

his address with this court. Petitioner did not file any objections to the findings and 

recommendations and the time for doing so has passed. 

Case 1:18-cv-01472-LJO-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis.

In addition, a prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to 

appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain 

circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Rule 11 

Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district court issue or deny a certificate of 

appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-

1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the court 

denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, 

the court will 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). Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s

decision debatable or conclude that the petition should proceed further. Thus, the court declines

to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 26, 2019, ECF No. 10, are 

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 

3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01472-LJO-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case 1:18-cv-01472-LJO-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 3