1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES CURTIS KERN, No. 2:24-cv-00471-DC-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT, HABEAS PETITION 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 27) 16 17 Petitioner James Curtis Kern is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 20, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending the petition be dismissed because, on the face of the petition, 22 Petitioner has not yet exhausted his claims by presenting them to the California Supreme Court. 23 (Doc. No. 27.) The findings and recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained notice 24 that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the findings 25 and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) 26 On February 26, 2025, Petitioner filed objections to the pending findings and 27 recommendations. (Doc. No. 28.) In his objections, Petitioner does not meaningfully address the 28 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Id.) Instead, Petitioner appears to 1 acknowledge he has yet to present his claims to the California Supreme Court. (Id.) Further, a 2 review of the docket in Petitioner’s ongoing appeal in state court reflects he has not exhausted 3 state remedies. See People v. Kern, No. C100646 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d).1 4 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 5 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 6 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 7 record and by proper analysis. 8 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 9 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 10 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. 11 Cockrell,

, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 12 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 13 denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 14 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 15 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 16 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 17 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 18 McDaniel,

(2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 19 would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 20 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 Accordingly, 22 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 20, 2025 (Doc. No. 27) are 23 ADOPTED in full; 24 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice 25

1 The court takes judicial notice of Petitioner’s state court appeal. See U.S. ex rel. Robinson 26 Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (holding a court 27 “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”) (citation omitted)). 28 1 due to Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies; 2 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 3 4, The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ + | Dated: _ April 9, 2025 LY os Dena Coggins 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28