1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIS DAVIS, No. 2:24-cv-00734-DC-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 PEOPLE OF SAN JOAQUIN, HABEAS PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 7) 16 17 Petitioner Willis Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 12, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending this action be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 22 because Petitioner does not allege that his custody violates federal law. (Doc. No. 7.) Instead, 23 Petitioner challenges his state court restitution order. (Id.) The findings and recommendations 24 were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 25 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id.) 26 Petitioner timely filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations, which the court 27 read and considered. (Doc. No. 8.) In his objections, Petitioner reiterates his request to reduce the 28 state court restitution order, but he does not address the issue of this court’s jurisdiction. (Id.) 1 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 | pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 5 | issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 6 | right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El □□ 7 | Cockrell,

(2003). Ifa court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only 8 || issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of 9 | aconstitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on 10 | procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a 11 | certificate of appealability jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states 12 | a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 13 | debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 14 | US. 473, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the 15 | court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be debatable or wrong. 16 | Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 7) are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is summarily dismissed; 21 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 22 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ | Dated: _March 6, 2025 RY os Dena Coggins 26 United States District Judge 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28