1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM BLOWHEART LEE, No. 1:24-cv-01221-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 14 v. DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING 15 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 16 CARLOS ARCE, Warden, (Doc. 8) 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner William Blowheart Lee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was 22 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 23 302. 24 On October 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 25 to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Doc. 8. Those findings and 26 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 27 were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. No objections have been filed, and the 28 deadline to do so has expired. 1 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the 3 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 6 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 7 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 8 allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 9 § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 10 the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists 11 of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 12 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 13 correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). “Where a plain 14 procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 15 reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 16 that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.”

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 October 15, 2024, Doc. 8, are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 6 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 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