1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN ANGEL PACHECO, Case No.: 1:23-cv-01717-JLT-HBK (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING FIRST 13 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK 14 COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE APPELLATE DISTRICT, 15 (Docs. 1, 6) Respondent. 16 17 Christian Angel Pacheco, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a first amended 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 The assigned magistrate judge conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 21 Governing Section 2254 Cases, and on January 5, 2024 issued Findings and Recommendations 22 recommending that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust 23 administrative remedies. (Doc. 6.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all 24 parties and notified them that any objections were due within 14 days. (Id.) The Court advised the 25 parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 26 rights on appeal.” (Id. at 5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) 27 Petitioner did not file objections, and the time to do so has expired. 28 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 1 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 2 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 3 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 4 | district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 5 | Miller-El vy. Cockrell,

(2003);

. If a court denies a habeas 6 || petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason 7 | could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that 8 | jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 9 | further.” Miller-El,

; Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the 10 | petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 11 | than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 12 | US. at 338. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that 13 | the first amended petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are 14 || deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial 15 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate 16 | of appealability. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on January 5, 2024, (Doc. 6), are 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 2. The first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 20 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 4. The Clerk of the Court is to terminate any pending deadlines/motions and CLOSE 22 the case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 29, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28