1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA MARIE PEREZ, No. 2:24-cv-003469-DC-CKD (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 LAVELLE PARKER, (Doc. No. 6) 15 Respondent.

16 17 Petitioner Lisa Marie Perez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 19, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Petitioner’s petition be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 22 No. 6.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained 23 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 3.) 24 On March 31, 2025, Petitioner filed objections to the pending findings and 25 recommendations. (Doc. No. 7.) In her objections, Petitioner continues to contend she should be 26 resentenced under A.B. 600 and that her present sentence is “unlawful and excessive.” (Id. at 2– 27 3.) Petitioner’s objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the magistrate judge’s 28 findings and recommendations. 1 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 including Petitioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 Having concluded that the pending petition must be dismissed, the court also declines to 6 issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner seeking writ of habeas corpus has no absolute 7 right to appeal; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See

; Miller-El v. 8 Cockrell,

, 335–36 (2003). If a court denies a petitioner's petition, the court may only 9 issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of 10 a constitutional right.

(c)(2). Where, as here, the court denies habeas relief on 11 procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a 12 certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states 13 a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 14 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

, 484 (2000). In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the 16 court's determination that the pending petition must be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction to be 17 debatable or wrong. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 19, 2025 (Doc. No. 6) are 20 ADOPTED in full; 21 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is summarily dismissed 22 for lack of jurisdiction; 23 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 5 | Dated: _ September 11, 2025 EIU os Dena Coggins 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28