1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER ROY SINCLAIR,

12 Petitioner, No. 2:24-cv-00038-TLN-EFB

13 ORDER v. 14 LINDA CLARK, et. al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 On August 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit remanded the instant action for the limited purpose 19 of granting or denying a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 16.) For the following reasons, 20 the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 On January 8, 2024, Petitioner Alexander Roy Sinclair (“Petitioner”), a county jail 22 prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. (ECF No. 23 1.) On August 26, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge ordered Petitioner to either pay the 24 appropriate filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days. (ECF 25 No. 4.) The magistrate judge further dismissed the petition with leave to amend for failing to 26 clearly state the relief sought in a short and plain statement. (Id. at 1–2.) The thirty days lapsed, 27 and Petitioner did not pay the filing fee, file an in forma pauperis application, or file an amended 28 1 | petition. On March 27, 2025, the magistrate judge then issued findings and recommendations to 2 | dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure to respond to the court’s August 26, 2024 order 3 | and failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 8.) This Court subsequently adopted these 4 | findings in recommendations in full. CECF No. 10.) Petitioner appealed. (ECF No. 12.) 5 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus does not have an absolute right to appeal — 6 | an appeal is only allowed under certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335— 7 | 36 (2003). A certificate of appealability will only issue if a petitioner makes “a substantial 8 || showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). This requires the 9 || petitioner to demonstrate that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution 10 | of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to 11 | deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller,

. 12 Here, the Court finds reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s decision to dismiss 13 | Petitioner’s claims without prejudice to be debatable or conclude this petition should proceed 14 | further. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Date: August 21, 2025 Z, 18 TROY L. NUNLEY 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28