Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00745/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00745-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner Krystal Wandick is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as without merit, and that the 

Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Doc. 21. Those findings and 

recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. In addition, the parties were “advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 

Id. (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

KRYSTAL WANDICK,

 Petitioner,

v.

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S 

FACILITY,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00745-KES-HBK (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 

CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Docs. 1, 21)

Case 1:20-cv-00745-KES-HBK Document 23 Filed 12/10/24 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

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). On November 25, 2024, Petitioner filed objections largely 

restating the arguments made in her petition.

Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather 

an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 

(2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only 

issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 

resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 

presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the 

merits of his case, she must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the 

existence of mere good faith on [her] . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the

petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 

encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-00745-KES-HBK Document 23 Filed 12/10/24 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

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 23, 2024, Doc. 21, are

ADOPTED in full.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED.

3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00745-KES-HBK Document 23 Filed 12/10/24 Page 3 of 3