1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOAQUIN MIGUEL BALASSA, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00272-KES-HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PETITION 13 v. ) FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 MARTIN GAMBOA, ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. ) ) Docs. 20, 29, 30 16 ) 17 Petitioner Joaquin Miguel Balassa is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with his petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. Docs. 20, 29. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 28, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as without merit, and that the 22 Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Doc. 30. The findings and recommendations 23 were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed 24 within fourteen (14) days after service. In addition, the parties were “advised that failure to file 25 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 26 Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan,

, 27 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). Petitioner filed objections on June 23, 2025, Doc. 31, and respondent filed 28 1 a reply to the objections, Doc. 32. 2 In his objections, petitioner details his personal background, alleges his trial counsel 3 refused to defend him, and generally attempts to argue that he is innocent. See Doc. 31 at 1–7. 4 The objections also contain a letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom, requesting 5 commutation of petitioner’s sentence.

at 10–19. 6 Pursuant to

(b)(1), the Court has performed a de novo review of this case. 7 Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes the 8 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The arguments in 9 petitioner’s objections relevant to his four grounds for relief were adequately addressed by the 10 findings and recommendations. To the extent petitioner’s objections attempt to raise new claims 11 for ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence, these claims were not presented as 12 grounds for relief in the petition. 13 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal, and an 14 appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335–36 15 (2003);

. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a 16 certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 17 resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 18 presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; 19 Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the 20 merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the 21 existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El,

. 22 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 23 petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 24 encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 25 the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 26 appealability. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 28, 2025, Doc. 30, are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 29, is DENIED. 5 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 7 8 g | SO ORDERED. _ 10 Dated: _ July 18, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28