1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY COLE DEHART, No. 1:24-cv-00617-KES-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE DUE TO 14 EASTERN DISTRICT FEDERAL PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE COURT, AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 15 Respondent. Doc. 11 16 17 Jeremy Cole Dehart is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. Doc. 1. The matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 22, 2025, following a preliminary screening of the petition, the assigned 21 magistrate judge ordered petitioner to file an amended petition to name a proper respondent 22 within thirty (30) days. Doc. 9. Petitioner did not file an amended petition. On August 27, 2025, 23 the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the Court dismiss 24 the petition without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to obey court orders and failure to 25 prosecute this action. Doc. 11. The findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner 26 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 27 service. Petitioner did not file objections and the time to do so has expired. 1 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 3 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 5 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 6 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 7 allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28

. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without 9 reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability 10 “if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 11 of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 12 was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). “Where a 13 plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 14 reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 15 that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.”

16 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 17 determination that there is a plain procedural bar present debatable or wrong. Therefore, the 18 Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 27, 2025, Doc. 11, are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT 5 PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders. 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 7 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 8 9 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ October 11, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28