1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIJAH WAYNE JONES, Case No.: 3:25-cv-0960-AJB-VET

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE 13 v. OF APPEALABILITY 14 WARDEN OF R.J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 On April 16, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 19

, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See ECF Nos. 20 1, 2. On April 22, 2025, this Court denied the IFP motion because it lacked the required 21 support, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 3 (citing Rules 22 Governing § 2254, Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254; Local Rule 3.2). The Court also 23 notified Petitioner he could have his case reopened by either paying the $5.00 filing fee or 24 submitting a properly supported IFP motion by June 2, 2025. Id. 25 Petitioner did not respond to the Court’s order. Instead, on May 29, 2025, he filed a 26 Notice of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 4. 27 The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case to this Court for the limited purpose of 28 determining whether a certificate of appealability is appropriate. See ECF No. 5. 1 A certificate of appealability is appropriate when “jurists of reason would find it 2 || debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right [or] 3 || that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 4 || procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). The Court DENIES a 5 || certificate of appealability in this case because jurists of reason would not find the dismissal 6 || for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement to be debatable or incorrect. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: August 4, 2025

10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28