1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND CHAD WATKINS, No. 1:25-cv-00273 JLT EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ADA COURT, ADVOCATE, DIRECTING CLERK OF 15 COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND Respondent. DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 16 APPEALABILITY 17 (Docs. 5, 7) 18 Raymond Chad Watkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus brought pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On March 20, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss 22 the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice based on Younger v. Harris,

(1971). (Doc. 7.) On April 7, 2025, Petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. 8.) 24 According to

(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the 25 matter. Having carefully reviewed the case, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes 26 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The 27 objections are somewhat difficult to understand but do not meaningfully dispute the key 28 conclusions of the findings and recommendations: that criminal proceedings remain ongoing in 1 | state court and that the other Younger factors are satisfied. 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 his petition, and an appeal is only 5 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 6 | § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching 7 | the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists 8 | of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 9 | constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 10 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). “Where a plain 11 || procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 12 | reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 13 | that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.”

14 Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the petition should be 15 | dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, 16 || the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 20, 2025 (Doc. 5) are 18 ADOPTED IN FULL. 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 20 3. Petitioner’s request for ADA advocate (Doc. 7) is DENIED as moot. 21 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 22 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 22, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28