1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN MICHAEL LOPEZ, No. 1:24-cv-01060-JLT-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 KEVIN HIXTON, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. 13) 16 17 Petitioner Steven Michael Lopez, represented by counsel, is a state prisoner proceeding 18 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to

. This matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On May 13, 2025,1 the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 13.) The findings and 23 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 24 were to be filed within thirty days after service.

On June 11, 2025, Petitioner filed timely 25 objections. (Doc. 14.) The objections largely repeat the position outlined in his traverse. Though 26 the Court acknowledges, as did the Magistrate Judge, that there is a lack of direct evidence that 27 Petitioner knew that the shooter possessed a gun, the court of appeal identified the circumstantial

28 1 The findings and recommendations were singed on May 12, 2025, but not docketed until May 13, 2025. 1 evidence upon which the jury could conclude that he constructively possessed the firearm. (Doc. 2 13 at 18-19) Thus, according to

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

, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 9 § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 10 appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 11 petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 12 to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; Slack v. McDaniel, 529

, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 14 demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 15 his . . . part.” Miller-El,

. 16 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 17 determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be 18 allowed to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial 19 of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Thus, 20 the Court ORDERS: 21 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 13, 2025 (Doc. 13) are ADOPTED 22 IN FULL. 23 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 24 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ July 29, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28