1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SABRINA LIMON, No. 1:24-cv-00316-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE, DECLINING 14 v. TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING 15 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 16 DIRK WILLIAMS, Acting Warden, (Doc. 12) 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner Sabrina Limon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 21 a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a 22 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On July 30, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 24 deny the petition on its merits. Doc. 12. Those findings and recommendations were served upon 25 all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days 26 after service. No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 27 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 28 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings eee SEI IIE OE IIE I RESID III IID LIE

1 | and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 3 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 4 | has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of her petition, and an appeal is 5 | allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). Ifa 6 | court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if 7 | jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional 8 | claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 9 | proceed further.” Miller-El,

; Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the 10 | petitioner is not required to prove the merits of her case, she must demonstrate “something more than 11 the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on [her] .. . part.” Miller-El,

| 338. 13 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 14 | petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 15 | encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the 16 denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 30, 2024, Doc. 12, are adopted 19 in full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied with prejudice; 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 22 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 24 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 26 Dated: _ April 8, 2025 4h 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28