1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC CRUZ MADERO, Case No. 1:24-cv-00445 JLT SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 15 Respondent. CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 (Docs. 7, 14) 17 18 Eric Cruz Madero is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus brought pursuant to

. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, asserting 20 “the judgment of conviction Petitioner now challenges in federal court is not final.” (Doc. 7 at 1.) 21 The magistrate judge found “Petitioner was awaiting resentencing proceedings at the time he filed 22 his federal habeas petition.” (Doc. 14 at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge found the petition for 23 writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the abstention doctrine in 24 Younger v. Harris,

(1971). (Id. at 2-3.) The magistrate judge recommended 25 Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted. (Id. at 3.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 27 any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 14 at 3.) The Court advised him that the “failure to 28 file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” 1 (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) After Petitioner 2 requested two extensions of time to file objections, the Court ordered any objections be filed no 3 later than December 20, 2024. (Doc. 18 at 2.) Petitioner did not file objections, and the time to do 4 so has passed. 5 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 6 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 7 are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the Court declines to issue a 8 certificate of appealability. 9 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 10 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 11 Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003);

. Where, as here, the Court 12 denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, 13 the Court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable 14 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 15 reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 16 Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the 17 district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude 18 either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be 19 allowed to proceed further.”

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would 20 not find the determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that 21 Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate 22 of appealability. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 23 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 30, 2024 (Doc. 14) are 24 ADOPTED in full. 25 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. 26 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. 27 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 28 /// 1 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 14, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28