1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY WHITE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00291 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 6)

14 STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, Director of ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT DSH, et al., OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING 15 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT Respondents. AND CLOSE CASE 16 ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 17 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

18 19 Rodney White is a state civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 20 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a 21 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On March 11, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge found the petition was premature 23 because Petitioner is awaiting trial, and recommended the petition be dismissed without prejudice 24 as premature. (Doc. 6.) The Court served these Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner 25 and notified him that any objections were due within 21 days. (Id. at 3.) The Court advised him 26 that the “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 27 District Court’s order.” (Id. at 4, citing Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991).) 28 Petitioner did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 1 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 2 case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A prisoner seeking a 5 writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, 6 and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335- 7 336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability 8 is

, which provides as follows:

9 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 10 appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

11 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 12 trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 13 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 14 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

15 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 16 court; or

17 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

18 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 19 right.

20 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 21 22 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, it may only issue a certificate of appealability 23 when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists 25 could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 26 different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 27 further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1983)). 1 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner did not make the required substantial 2 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 3 | appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 4 | entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 5 | proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Based upon the 6 | foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 11, 2024 (Doc. 6) are 8 ADOPTED in full. 9 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 11 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 17,2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28