1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TRAVIS CUELLAR, No. 1:24-cv-01398-KES-SKO (HC) 10 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 11 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 12 v. DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING 13 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 14 MADERA COUNTY SHERIFF, (Doc. 6) 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner Travis Cuellar is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 21, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations to dismiss the petition pursuant to Younger v. Harris,

(1971). 23 Doc. 6. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice 24 that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. On 25 December 2, 2024, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 8. 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 concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 1 | analysis. 2 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 3 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 4 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 5 | allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 6 | U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without 7 | reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability 8 | “afjurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 9 | of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 10 | was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). “Where a 11 | plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 12 | reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 13 | that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Jd. 14 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the determination 15 | that the petition should be dismissed debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed 16 | further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 21, 2024, Doc. 6, are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 22 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 24 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 26 Dated: _ December 12, 2024 4h 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28