(HC) Baker v. Superior Courts of California

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMAUL LEE BAKER, No. 24-cv-00476-DC-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING SUPERIOR COURTS OF CALIFORNIA, HABEAS PETITION et al.

15 (Doc. No. 16) Respondents.

17 Petitioner Jamaul Lee Baker, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On January 6, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim, to prosecute, and to comply with court orders. (Doc. No. 16.) The findings and recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 3.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper | analysis.

2 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to | issue certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute | right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. | Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only | issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of | aconstitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on | procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a | certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states | a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it | debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 | U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the | court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. Thus, | the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

15 Accordingly, 16 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 6, 2025 (Doc. No. 16) are 17 adopted in full; 18 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; 19 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 20 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. □ | Dated: _February 13, 2025 _ DUC Dena Coggins 24 United States District Judge