1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID JIMENEZ, No. 1:24-cv-00840-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE, DECLINING 14 v. TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING 15 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 16 TAMMY CAMPBELL, Warden, Doc. 15 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner David Jimenez is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas 21 corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 22 Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On May 5, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 24 deny the petition on its merits. Doc. 15. Those findings and recommendations were served upon 25 all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 26 days after service. On May 29, 2025, petitioner filed objections to the findings and 27 recommendations. Doc. 16. On June 6, 2025, respondent filed a reply to petitioner’s objections. 28 Doc. 17. 1 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 3 Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. Petitioner’s objections rehash arguments already appropriately considered and rejected 5 by the findings and recommendations. 6 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 7 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 8 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 9 allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). If a 10 court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if 11 jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional 12 claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 13 proceed further.” Miller-El,

; Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While 14 the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 15 than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El,

. 17 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 18 determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the petition is deserving 19 of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the 20 denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 5, 2025, Doc. 15, are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied with prejudice; 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 6 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 8 g | SO ORDERED. _ 10 Dated: _ July 21, 2025 4h : UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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