1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REYES JAMES CARRILLO, No. 1:22-cv-01095-KES-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 14 ROB ST. ANDRE, APPEALABILITY

15 Respondent. Docs. 1, 16, 20

16 17 Petitioner Reyes James Carrillo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with a petitioner for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. Docs. 1, 6. On October 28, 19 2022, Respondent Rob St. Andre, warden of High Desert State Prison, filed an answer, arguing that 20 petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief. Doc. 16. Respondent lodged the state court record in 21 support. Doc. 14. Petitioner did not file a traverse or otherwise respond. 22 On March 18, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the petition be denied. Doc. 20. The findings and recommendations were 24 served on petitioner and noted that petitioner had 14 days to file objections.

at 8–9. After 25 receiving an extension of time, Doc. 22, petitioner did not file objections and the deadline to do so 26 has passed. 27 In accordance with

(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 1 || 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 whether 3 | acertificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 4 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed only 5 || in certain circumstances. Miller-El vy. Cockrell,

(2003);

. 6 | The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, 7 | for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the 8 | issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 9 |

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 10 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 11 | determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that the issues present 12 | deserve encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 13 | appealability. 14 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 18, 2025, Doc. 20, are ADOPTED 16 in full; 17 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED; 18 3. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice; 19 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 20 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 22 93 | SO ORDERED. _ 24 Dated: _ June 19, 2025 4h 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28