1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, No. 2:23-cv-02554-DAD-CKD (PC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARILY 14 BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, DISMISSING PETITION CALIFORNIA, 15 (Doc. Nos. 1, 6) Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an application 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 23, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge reviewed the pending petition and issued 21 findings and recommendations recommending that it be summarily dismissed because it failed to 22 state any cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 6.) Specifically, the magistrate 23 judge concluded that petitioner’s claims all focused on his challenges to state parole denials or the 24 representation he received in connection with his state parole hearings and failed to state any 25 arguable claim for relief under § 2254. (Id. at 1–2.) 26 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 27 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 28 3.) Petitioner filed two documents with the court on June 10, 2024 (Doc. Nos. 7 & 8), which the 1 court construes as his objections to the findings and recommendations. In his objections 2 petitioner complains generally of the conditions of his confinement in state prison and his lack of 3 legal knowledge or assistance in that regard. (Id.) Those objections, however, provide no basis 4 upon which to question the analysis set forth in the pending findings and recommendations. 5 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 6 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 7 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 8 by the record and by proper analysis. 9 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking a 10 writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, 11 and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335– 12 36 (2003);

. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only 13 issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 14 resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 15 presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; 16 see also Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the petitioner is not required to 17 prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity 18 or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El,

. In the present 19 case, the court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the 20 petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 21 encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 22 the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court will decline to issue a certificate of 23 appealability. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 6) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 26 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is summarily 27 DISMISSED; 28 ///// 1 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 2 § 2253; and 3 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: _ March 4, 2025 Dab A. 2, sxe 6 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28