1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEWAYNE PARKER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00367 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 14 COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 15 NAPA SUPERIOR COURT, et al., (Doc. 14) 16 Respondents. ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 17 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

18 19 Dewayne Parker is a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 20 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. (See generally Doc. 10.) The 21 magistrate judge preformed a preliminary review of the amended petition pursuant to Rule 4 of 22 the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and determined the Court should abstain from the matter 23 because Petitioner’s “state criminal proceedings are ongoing,” and the state “has an important 24 interest in the matter.” (Doc. 12 at 2-3.) The magistrate judge also found that “[t]he trial court 25 remains available as an adequate forum for Petitioner to seek relief.” (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the 26 magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the petition. (Id.) 27 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 28 any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 14.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 1 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 2 Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) The Court served the Findings and 3 Recommendations on the only address on record. Although the U.S. Postal Service returned the 4 mail as undeliverable, the Court’s service upon Plaintiff is deemed fully effective pursuant to 5 Local Rule 182(f). 6 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 7 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 8 are supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 10 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 11 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

, 335-336 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a 13 certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a 14 constitutional right.

(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, Petitioner must 15 establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 16 should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 17 deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) 18 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1983)). In the present case, the Court finds that 19 Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to 20 justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 21 determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or 22 deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 23 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 27, 2025, (Doc. 14), are 24 ADOPTED in full. 25 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. 26 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 27 /// 28 /// 1 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ June 27, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28