1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY PAUL LUCERO, No. 2:24-cv-00268-DAD-CKD (HC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF HABEAS PETITION CALIFORNIA, 15 (Doc. No. 4) Defendant. 16

17 18 Petitioner Timothy Paul Lucero is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se with a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that this federal habeas action be dismissed, without prejudice, because petitioner 23 failed to respond to the court’s August 27, 2024 order (Doc. No. 3) directing him to submit, 24 within thirty days, either an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the 25 appropriate filing fee ($5.00). (Doc. No. 4 at 1–2.) Those findings and recommendations were 26 served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 fourteen (14) days from the date of service.1 (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed and the 2 time in which to do so has long since passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, the court will dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to petitioner’s failure to file 7 an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the required fee to proceed with this action. 8 Additionally, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking 9 writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited 10 circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335–36 (2003). Rule 11 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district court issue or deny a 12 certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth 13 Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar,

(9th Cir. 1997). The court will 14 issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 15 states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 16 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

, 484 (2000). Here, reasonable jurists would not find the court’s decision to dismiss the 18 petition to be debatable or conclude that the petition should proceed further. Thus, the court 19 declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 20 Accordingly, 21 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 8, 2024 (Doc. No. 4) are 22 ADOPTED in full; 23 ///// 24 /////

25 1 The service copy of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations dated October 8, 2024, mailed to petitioner at his address of record, was returned to the court marked as 26 “Undeliverable.” Thus, petitioner was required to file a notice of his change of address with the 27 court no later than December 30, 2024. To date, petitioner has not filed a notice of his change of address or otherwise communicated with the court. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of 28 documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED, without 2 prejudice, due to petitioner’s failure to comply with the court’s order directing him 3 to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the required filing fee; 4 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 5 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. "| Dated: _ April 1, 2025 Dal A. 2, sxe 8 DALE A. DROZD 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28