1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM POLLARD, No. 2:23-cv-0113-TLN-DMC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROB ST. ANDRE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with retained counsel, brings this petition for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On February 7, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within the time specified therein. (ECF No. 23.) Petitioner filed objections to the findings and 23 recommendations. (ECF No. 24.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 /// 1 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has 2 considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner can appeal this 3 decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See

(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 4 Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under 28

“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 6 constitutional right.”

(c)(2). A court must either issue a certificate of 7 appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 8 such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 9 procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that 10 jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 11 ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 12 claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford,

(9th Cir. 13 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

,

(2000)). For the reasons 14 set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the Court finds that issuance of 15 a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 7, 2024 (ECF No. 23) 3 are ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED; 5 3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 | Date: March 11, 2024 8 / ° “ / eck 10 — ZN NZ Troy L. Nunley> } 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28