1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZACHARY LLOYD KALSO, No. 2:24-cv-00512-DAD-CKD (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, THE PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 6) 16 17 Petitioner Zachary Lloyd Kalso is a former detainee of the Butte County Jail1 proceeding 18 pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 24, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be dismissed because it was duplicative of 23 another petition he had filed on the same day. (Doc. No. 6 at 1); see Pet., Kalso v. Butte Cnty. 24 Superior Court, No. 2:24-cv-00507-DJC-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2024) (Doc. No. 1); Kalso 25 v. Butte Cnty. Superior Court, No. 2:24-cv-00643-WBS-AC,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 26

27 1 The undersigned notes that petitioner appears to have filed his petition prior to any criminal conviction and sought to be released from Butte County Jail on a lower bail. (Doc. No. 1 at 3–4.) 28 Petitioner has since updated his address, indicating that he has been released from custody.

) (referring to instant case and another habeas petition by petitioner as seeking the 2 same relief as that sought in a separate

case filed by petitioner), report and 3 recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-cv-00643-WBS-AC,

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 4 2024). The undersigned also notes that petitioner’s first filed habeas petition in 2:24-cv-00507- 5 DJC-DMC-P, which the petition in this case is duplicative of, was summarily dismissed on 6 August 2, 2024, as failing to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief because petitioner 7 was not challenging a state court judgment. See Order, Kalso, 2:24-cv-00507-DJC-DMC-P (Aug. 8 2, 2024) (Doc. No. 8). 9 The pending findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained 10 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service. 11 (Doc. No. 6 at 2.) To date, petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so 12 has passed. 13 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 14 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 15 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 16 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 17 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 18 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. 19 Cockrell,

(2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 20 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 21 denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 22 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 23 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 24 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 25 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 26 McDaniel,

(2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 27 would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 28 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2024 (Doc. No. 6) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. The operative petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this action (Doc. No. 1) 5 is dismissed as duplicative of the already dismissed petition filed in Kalso v. Butte 6 Cnty. Superior Court, No. 2:24-cv-00507-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.); 7 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 8 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _November 26, 2024 Dak A. 2, axel 11 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28