1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMAL D. FRITZ, No. 2:24-cv-02563-DAD-AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HABEAS PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 5) 16 17 18 Petitioner Jamal D. Fritz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be summarily dismissed 23 based on a lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 5.) The magistrate judge noted that in the petition 24 pending before the court petitioner challenges his underlying state court conviction on the ground 25 that he is eligible for resentencing and the dismissal of enhancements under Assembly Bill 26 (“A.B.”) 600 due to changes in the law, but the state court has determined that petitioner is not 27 entitled to have his sentence recalled. (Id. at 2) (citing People v. Fritz, No. C098577,

1264921 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2024)). Because petitioner’s claim raises “purely a question of 1 state law interpretation,” the magistrate judge found that it “does not give rise to a federal 2 question cognizable in federal habeas.” (Id.) The magistrate judge noted that there is an 3 exception if “the state court’s finding was so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an 4 independent due process or Eighth Amendment violation,” but observed that “petitioner makes no 5 showing that the state court acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” (Id. at 2–3.) The 6 pending findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained notice that any 7 objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 3.) On 8 November 25, 2024, petitioner filed timely objections to the pending findings and 9 recommendations. (Doc. No. 6.) 10 In his objections, petitioner repeats his argument that he is eligible to have his five-year 11 sentencing enhancement stricken under California A.B. 600, but he also acknowledges that his 12 arguments have been rejected by the Tehama County Superior Court and the California Court of 13 Appeal for the Third Appellate District. (Id. at 2–4.) Petitioner makes no argument in response 14 to the magistrate judge’s finding that his claim does not give rise to a federal question or that 15 petitioner would need to make a showing that the state court acted in an arbitrary or capricious 16 manner in order for this court to have jurisdiction to consider his petition. 17 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 18 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 19 objections, the court concludes that the pending findings and recommendations are supported by 20 the record and proper analysis. 21 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 22 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 23 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. 24 Cockrell,

, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 25 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 26 denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 27 relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 28 should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 1 | petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 2 | find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 3 | McDaniel,

(2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 4 | would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed due to lack 5 | of jurisdiction to be debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of 6 | appealability. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 13, 2024 (Doc. No. 13) 9 are ADOPTED in full; 10 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED; 11 3. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 12 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. * Dated: _ April 25, 2025 Dae A. 2, eyel 15 DALE A. DROZD 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28