1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNNY Y. HERRERA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00879-KES-CDB (HC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 UNKNOWN, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Defendant. (Doc. 8) 16

17

18 Petitioner Johnny Herrera is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 19 a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. Doc. 1. The petition seeks 20 review of a sentence imposed upon him in state court.

. Petitioner claims his sentence 21 should be reduced.

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On October 15, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 to dismiss the petition, finding that petitioner (1) failed to name the state officer having custody, 25 Doc. 8 at 4, (2) failed to exhaust his administrative remedies,

and (3) failed to state a claim for 26 relief, in that petitioner failed to allege anything more than a possible error in the application by 27 the state court of state sentencing laws,

at 5–6. The findings and recommendations were 1 On November 13, 2024, after the 21-day deadline had passed, petitioner filed a motion in 2 which he requested information concerning his case. Doc. 9. In light of petitioner’s motion, the 3 assigned magistrate judge extended nunc pro tunc the time for petitioner to file objections to the 4 findings and recommendations, effectively extending the deadline to file objections from 5 November 5, 2024, to December 16, 2024. Doc. 10. The order extending the deadline was 6 served on petitioner, along with a copy of the previously served findings and recommendations. 7 Petitioner did not file any objections to the findings and recommendations and the 8 deadline to do so has passed. 9 In accordance with

(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 10 this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations 11 to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 13 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 14 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 15 allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28

. The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could 17 debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 18 different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 19 further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 21 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 22 determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 23 be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 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; 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 6 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 7 8 g | SO ORDERED. _ 10 Dated: _ January 3, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28