1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 FRANCISCO ESPINOZA, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0976 JLT SKO ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) PETITION WITH PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING ) THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) (Doc. 6) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16

17 Francisco Espinoza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, in which he requests the Court investigate 19 whether he is entitled to resentencing based upon changes in California law. The magistrate judge 20 performed a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 21 Cases and found Petitioner “fails to state a cognizable habeas claim.” (Doc. 6 at 2.) 22 First, the magistrate judge observed that “is it is not a function of a reviewing federal habeas 23 court to ‘investigate’ …to determine whether any constitutional violations have occurred.” (Doc. 6 at 24 2.) Second, the magistrate judge found the claims “pertain solely to the state court’s interpretation and 25 application of state sentencing laws,” which this Court cannot review. (Id.) Finally, the magistrate 26 judge found the petition was unexhausted, because Petitioner did not seek relief from the appellate 27 court and the California Supreme Court prior to filing in the federal court. (Id. at 3.) Therefore, the 28 magistrate judge recommended the Court summarily dismiss the petition. (Id.) 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any 2 || objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 6 at 4.) The Court advised Petitioner that the “failure to f 3 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilker: 4 || v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file objections, and the time to « 5 || so has passed. 6 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 7 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 8 || by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealabilit 9 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a distric 10 || court’s denial of his petition. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). If the Court □□□□ 11 || a petition, it may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial □□□□□□ 12 || of the denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). To make such a showing, Petitioner 13 || must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petitio 14 || should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve 15 || encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (cleaned up). In the 16 || present case, the Court finds Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of 17 || constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would n 18 || find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, 19 || wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 8, 2025 (Doc. 6) are ADOPTED. 21 2. The petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 23 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: _ September 12, 2025 ( LAW pA LU. wan 27 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28