1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RIGO RODRIGUEZ, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01266-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 GAMBOA, ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE Respondent. ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 ) ) (Docs. 1, 16) 16 ) 17 Petitioner Aaron Rigo Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 8, 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. 16. Those findings and 23 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to 24 be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Petitioner has not filed objections, and the 25 deadline to do so has passed. 26 Pursuant to

(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of this case. 27 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are 28 1 | supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal; rather, 3 | an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335-36 4 | (2003);

. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a 5 | certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 6 | resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 7 || presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; 8 | Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the 9 | merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the 10 | existence of mere good faith on his .. . part.” Miller-El,

. 11 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 12 | petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 13 || encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 14 | the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 15 | appealability 16 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 8, 2025, Doc. 16, are 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED. 20 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 22 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ August 7, 2025 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28