1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZANE HUBBARD, No. 1:23-cv-01102-ADA-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A 14 UNITED STATES, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 6) 16 17 Petitioner Zane Hubbard is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 18 a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 25, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that the Court dismiss the petition as successive. (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner filed 22 objections, claiming that his writ does not challenge his underlying conviction or conditions of his 23 confinement. (ECF No. 7.) Rather, he claims that his inmate trust account depletes too quickly 24 for him to purchase necessities, a state of affairs that is “excessively punitive.” (Id. at 2.) It 25 appears that Petitioner’s place of confinement withdraws money from his inmate trust account 26 every month pursuant to

to pay the filing fees of Petitioner’s eleven active civil 27 rights complaints. (Id.) Petitioner’s objections, therefore, concede that his filing does not 28 challenge the fact of his underlying conviction by raising a new, retroactive constitutional right or 1 demonstrating previously undiscoverable facts that would establish by clear and convincing 2 evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found Petitioner 3 guilty of the underlying offense. To the extent Petitioner believes he is paying more than he 4 should in filing fees in any particular civil case, he should raise the issue in that case, not in a 5 petition for writ of habeas corpus. 6 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 8 objections, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 9 record and proper analysis. 10 The Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner seeking a 11 writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, 12 and an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335– 13 36 (2003). If a court denies a petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability when 14 a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists 16 could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 17 different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 18 further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1983)). Here, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 20 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 21 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 22 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 23 proceed further. 24 Accordingly, 25 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 25, 2023, (ECF No. 6), are 26 adopted in full; 27 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; 28 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 1 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 3 4 | ISSO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ August 22, 2023 ‘ UNITED $TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28