1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALONZO JENKINS, No. 1:23-cv-01590-KES-EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO CALIFORNIA, ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. Doc. 13 16 17 Petitioner Alonzo Jenkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner does not 22 challenge his custody, but rather, a restitution order against him. Doc. 13. The findings and 23 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 24 filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and recommendations.

On 25 February 8, 2024, petitioner filed timely objections. Doc. 14. 26 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 28 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 The findings and recommendations are correct that the Court has jurisdiction to review a habeas 2 petition only when the petition asserts that the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the 3 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States,”

(a), and the petition here 4 does not do so. See Bailey v. Hill,

(9th Cir. 2010). Indeed, petitioner concedes 5 as much in his objections. Doc. 14 at 2 (“Petitioner is not challenging his conviction[] or plea. . . 6 . [T]he Petitioner is [challenging] the excessive restitution fines given by the sentencing court.”). 7 The Court therefore does not have jurisdiction to review the claim. 8 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 9 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 10 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 11 allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28

. The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could 13 debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 14 different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 15 further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 17 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the determination 18 that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should be allowed to 19 proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 8, 2024, Doc. 13, are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 6 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 7 8 g | SO ORDERED. _ 10 Dated: _ December 12, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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