1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ANGEL MARTINEZ Case No. 2:24-cv-01418-FLA (SSC) 12 SANCHEZ, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 Petitioner, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF v. 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DENYING 15 ROBERT LUNA, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, GRANTING 16 Respondent. MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. 16], AND DENYING MOTION FOR 17 STAY [DKT. 13] 18 Pursuant to

, the court has reviewed the petition, all the 19 records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge. Further, the court has engaged in a de novo review of those 21 portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 22 Petitioner is a defendant in a pending state court criminal action. The Report 23 and Recommendation (“Report”) recommends that Respondent’s motion to dismiss 24 be granted, that this action be dismissed without prejudice, and that Petitioner’s 25 motion for stay of his state court proceedings be denied. Dkt. 28. Petitioner’s 26 objections to the Report, Dkt. 29, do not warrant a change to the Report’s findings 27 or recommendation. 28 1 Petitioner objects to the denial of his motion as untimely under California 2 || Code of Civil Procedure § 170.6 for recusal of the presiding state court trial judge. 3 || Dkt. 29 at 1. As the Report explained, this is a state-law claim that is not 4 || cognizable in a federal habeas action. Dkt. 28 at 4-5. As the Report further 5 || explained, even if it is assumed that the claim is cognizable, Petitioner failed to 6 || allege that the state court trial judge was biased. /d. at 5-6. Petitioner did not detail 7 || any alleged acts by the state court trial judge that would reflect improper personal 8 || bias or favor toward the prosecution. Jd. 9 The court accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the 10 || Report and Recommendation. 11 ORDER 12 IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 16, is granted 13 || and that judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. IT IS 14 || FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for stay, Dkt. 13, is denied as 15 || moot. 16 Further, the court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of 17 || the denial of a constitutional right or that the court erred in its procedural ruling 18 || and, therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 19 |} ULS.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 20 || 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || DATED: February 18, 2025 : 5 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 26 27 28