1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRYSTAL WANDICK, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00745-KES-HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION 13 v. ) FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE FACILITY, ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 1, 21) 16 ) 17

18 Petitioner Krystal Wandick is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this petition for writ 19 of habeas corpus pursuant to

. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as without merit, and that the 23 Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Doc. 21. Those findings and 24 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 25 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. In addition, the parties were “advised that 26 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 27

(citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 28

, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). On November 25, 2024, Petitioner filed objections largely 2 restating the arguments made in her petition. 3 Consistent with

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 4 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are 5 supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, rather 7 an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335–36 8 (2003);

. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only 9 issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 10 resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 11 presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; 12 Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the 13 merits of his case, she must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the 14 existence of mere good faith on [her] . . . part.” Miller-El,

. 15 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 16 petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 17 encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 18 the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 19 appealability. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 23, 2024, Doc. 21, are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED. 5 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 7 8 g | SO ORDERED. _ 10 Dated: _ December 10, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28