1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON RODNEY LENEY, No. 2:24-cv-02509-DAD-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 BUTTE COUNTY JAIL, HABEAS PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 11) 16 17 18 Petitioner Jason Rodney Leney is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On November 27, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations recommending that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be dismissed due to 24 petitioner’s failure to first exhaust his claims before the highest state court before presentation to 25 this federal court. (Doc. No. 11 at 2.) The pending findings and recommendations were served 26 upon petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen 27 (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) To date, petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in 28 which to do so has passed. 1 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 | pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 5 | issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 6 | right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El □□□ 7 | Cockrell,

(2003). Ifa court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 8 | only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 9 | denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas 10 | relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court 11 | should issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 12 | petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 13 | find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 14 | McDaniel,

(2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists 15 | would not find the court’s determination that the pending petition must be dismissed to be 16 | debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 27, 2024 (Doc. No. 11) 19 are hereby ADOPTED; 20 2. The operative first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 4) is 21 DISMISSED; 22 3. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 23 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _May 7, 2025 Dab A. 2, axel 26 DALE A. DROZD 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28