Jackson v. Pallares

— 1 — — 2 — 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 5 — 6 GEORGIE MICHELLE JACKSON, Case No. 22-cv-05515-JD 4 Petitioner, ORDER RE DISMISSAL 8 V. 9 M. PALLARES, 10 Respondent. — 11 — 12 Georgie Jackson, a pro se state prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . 5 13 || Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the sole claim in the petition was 14 || unexhausted. The Court granted the motion but provided Jackson twenty-eight days to file a 3 15 || motion for a stay if she chose to exhaust the claim. Jackson has not filed a motion for a stay or a 16 || otherwise communicated with the Court. 3 17 The case is dismissed as unexhausted, and the Clerk is requested to close it. A certificate S 18 || of appealability (“COA”) will not issue because this is not a case in which “jurists of reason would 19 || find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 20 || that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 21 ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court declines to issue a COA 22 || regarding the procedural holding and the underlying claim in the petition. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: December 21, 2023 — 25 — — 26 — JAMES TO 27 United Stftes District Judge — 28 —