1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARLONZO JACKSON BANKS, No. 2:21-cv-00843-DAD-SCR (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A 14 CHARLES SCHUYLER, CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondents. (Doc. Nos. 1, 21.) 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 14, 2023, the then-assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that the petition be denied on the merits.1 (Doc. No. 21.) 22 Specifically, in the detailed findings and recommendations the magistrate judge examined each of 23 petitioner’s seven claims for federal habeas relief and concluded that, under the standard of 24 review applicable under

(d)(1), petitioner had failed to show that the state court 25

1 The court apologizes to the parties for the delay in the issuance of this order. The case was 26 reassigned to the undersigned on August 25, 2022 (Doc. No. 20) and then reassigned to 27 Magistrate Judge Riordan on August 6, 2024. (Doc. No. 35.) Perhaps as a result of those reassignment orders, the undersigned was just recently alerted to the fact that the findings and 28 recommendation issued on June 14, 2023, were still pending. 1 decision on any of his claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established 2 law as determined by the Supreme Court, or resulted in a decision based on an unreasonable 3 determination of the facts. (Id. at 14–47.) 4 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 5 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service and that 6 replies to any objections were to be filed within seven (7) days of service of objections. (Id. at 7 47.) After seeking and obtaining several extensions of time in which to do so, on December 8, 8 2023, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 32.) On 9 December 12, 2023, respondent replied to those objections. (Doc. No. 33.) 10 In his well–presented objections, petitioner takes issue with the findings and 11 recommendations’ analysis of each of his claims. Petitioner’s arguments in support of his claims, 12 including those presented in his objections, are by no means frivolous. For instance, it would 13 seem that the state appellate court in its opinion affirming petitioner’s judgment of conviction 14 took his claim of prosecutorial misconduct at closing argument quite seriously, ultimately 15 concluding that even if the prosecutor misstated the law in that argument to the jury there was no 16 prejudicial misconduct. (Doc. No. 21 at 29–34.) In the end, however, the undersigned concludes 17 that petitioner has not cleared the high bar set by 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) and agrees with the 18 magistrate judge’s determination that he has failed to show that the state court decision as to any 19 of his claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law as 20 determined by the Supreme Court, or resulted in a decision based on an unreasonable 21 determination of the facts. 22 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 23 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 24 objections and respondent’s reply thereto, the court concludes that the findings and 25 recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking a 27 writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, 28 and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335– 1 | 36 (2003);

. Ifa court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only 2 || issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 3 | resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 4 | presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; 5 | see also Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the petitioner is not required to 6 || prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity 7 || or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El,

.7 In the present 8 | case, the court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that the 9 | petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 10 || encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 11 | the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court will decline to issue a certificate of 12 | appealability. 13 Accordingly: 14 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 14, 2023 (Doc. No. 21) are 15 adopted; 16 2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied on the merits; 17 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability; and 18 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _Mareh 6, 2025 Da A. 2, axel 21 DALE A. DROZD 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28 | ? This principle is particularly applicable here in the undersigned’s view.