Case 2:22-cv-02132-FWS-PD Document 7 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOSES CLARK, Case No. 2:22-cv-02132-FWS-PD

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING 13 v. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, 14 GLEN E. PRATT,1 AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES 15 Respondent. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND 16 DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17

18

19 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the 20 records on file, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 21 Judge (“Report”), and Petitioner’s Objections to the Report. 22 In his Objections, Petitioner does not challenge any portion of the 23 Report. Instead, he refers to a motion to disqualify that he filed in a civil 24 rights action, [Clark v. Gamble, No. 22-00641-JVS (PD), ECF No. 6 (C.D. Cal. 25 filed Jan. 24, 2022)], and argues that the Magistrate Judge and the District 26

27 1 Glen E. Pratt is the warden of the California Rehabilitation Center, where 28 Petitioner is housed, and is substituted in under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) as the proper Respondent. Case 2:22-cv-02132-FWS-PD Document? Filed 06/10/22 Page 2of2 Page ID#:45

1 || Judge should be disqualified. [See Dkt. No. 6 at 1.] The Court has already 2 || denied the motion to disqualify in that case [see Clark, No. 22-00641-JVS 3 || (PD), ECF No. 7], and Petitioner asserts no new facts or arguments to show 4 || why disqualification is warranted in this one.2 Thus, even if the Court were 5 || to construe Petitioner’s Objections as a motion to disqualify, the Court would 6 || deny the motion for the same reasons it denied the corresponding motion to 7 || disqualify in his civil rights action. [See Clark, No. 22-00641-JVS (PD), ECF 8 || No. 7.] 9 Having reviewed all the relevant materials, the Court orders as follows: 10 1. The Court accepts the Report and adopts it as its own findings and 11 conclusions. 12 2. The Petition is denied, and for the reasons set forth in the Report, 13 grounds one and two in the Petition are dismissed with prejudice, 14 and ground three is dismissed without prejudice. 15 3. For the reasons stated in the Report, the Court finds that Petitioner 16 has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 17 right and, therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in 18 this action. See

(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller- 19 El v. Cockrell,

(2003). 20 21 | DATED: June 10, 2022 Lo LS /-— 22 FRED W. SLAUGHTER 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 | 2 Petitioner appealed the denial of the motion to disqualify. [See Clark, No. 22- 28 || 00641-JVS (PD), ECF No. 9.] On May 27, 2022, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as “frivolous.” [See

ECF No. 14.]