1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEONARDO MONDRAGON Case No. 1:25-cv-0018 JLT SKO (HC) HERNANDEZ, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 14 COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 15 MARTIN GAMBOA, Warden, ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 16 Respondent. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

17 (Doc. 18)

18 Leonardo Mondragon Hernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, on the following grounds: (1) violation of the 20 right to present a complete defense, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel through the failure to 21 investigate all defenses.1 (See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge found Petitioner was not 22 entitled habeas relief on these grounds, and recommended the Court deny the petition with 23 prejudice. (Doc. 18 at 14-30.) 24 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified 25 Petitioner that any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 18 at 30.) The Court advised the 26 parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 27 1 The Court struck Grounds Three and Four were unexhausted and struck the additional grounds from the 28 petition. (Doc. 15.) As a result, the Petition proceeds only on Grounds One and Two. 1 rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) 2 Petitioner did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 4 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 5 are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, the Court declines to issue a 6 certificate of appealability. 7 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 8 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 9 Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). The controlling statute in determining 10 whether to issue a certificate of appealability is

, which provides as follows:

11 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 12 appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

13 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 14 trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings. 15 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 16 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

17 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 18 court; or

19 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

20 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 21 right.

22 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 23 24 If a court denies a petition, it may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes 25 a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2). To make a 26 substantial showing, Petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, 27 for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the 28 issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. 1 | McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1983)). In 2 | Petitioner does not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to 3 | justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 4 | determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or 5 | deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 13, 2025 (Doc. 18) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED with prejudice. 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 10 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _ September 20, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28