1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUSTIN MARCUS ZINMAN, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-00687-KES-HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE HEARINGS, ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. ) ) Docs. 1, 16 16 ) 17 Petitioner Justin Marcus Zinman 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 The assigned magistrate judge conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 21 Governing Section 2254 Cases, and on July 21, 2025, issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that the petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Doc. 16. 23 Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any 24 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Petitioner timely filed 25 objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 17. 26 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 27 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings 28 1 and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The objections restate 2 petitioner’s general allegation, made in his petition and in the response to the order to show cause, 3 that the State of California is biased against him, but they fail to establish any basis to excuse 4 petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state remedies. See Doc. 17. 5 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 6 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances. 7 Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335–36 (2003);

. If a court denies a habeas 8 petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason 9 could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that 10 jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 11 further.” Miller-El,

; Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the 12 petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 13 than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 14 U.S. at 338. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that 15 the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of 16 encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of 17 the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 18 appealability. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 21, 2025, Doc. 16, are 3 ADOPTED in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED; 5 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; 6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending deadlines/motions and 7 CLOSE the case. 8 ? IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 10 4h Dated: _ August 28, 2025 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28