1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIRO VELASQUEZ MAIRENA, No. 2:23-cv-00554-DAD-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 GENA JONES, PETITION SEEKING FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF ON THE MERITS 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 1, 12) 16 17 Petitioner Jairo Velasquez Mairena is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On March 13, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be denied on the merits. (Doc. No. 12.) 23 Specifically, in those findings and recommendations the magistrate judge examined each of 24 petitioner’s five claims for federal habeas relief and concluded that, under the standard of review 25 applicable under

(d)(1), petitioner had failed to show that the state court decision 26 rejecting his claims for relief was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established 27 law as determined by the Supreme Court, or resulted in a decision based on an unreasonable 28 determination of the facts. (Id. at 9, 14–15, 19–20, 22–23 and 25–26.) 1 The pending findings and recommendations were served upon the parties and contained 2 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3 12.) Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations and the time in which to 4 do so has passed. 5 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 6 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 7 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Having concluded that the pending petition must be denied, the court also declines to issue 9 a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to 10 appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. 11 Cockrell,

(2003). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may 12 only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the 13 denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). If a court denies a habeas petition on the 14 merits, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason could disagree 15 with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could 16 conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller- 17 El,

; see also Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). While the petitioner 18 is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the 19 absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on [his] . . . part.” Miller-El,

338. In the present case, the court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 21 determination that the petition should be denied to be debatable or wrong, or that the issues 22 presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the 23 required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court will 24 decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 25 Accordingly, 26 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 13, 2025 (Doc. No. 12) are 27 ADOPTED in full; 28 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED on the merits; 1 3. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C 2 § 2253; and 3 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this action. 4 ITIS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: September 9, 2025 Dah A. 2, sy 6 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28