1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS LOUIS POPKE, No. 1:24-cv-00779 JLT EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 CHANCE ANDES, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. 28) 16 17 On August 29, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 18 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 28.) On September 19, 19 2025, Petitioner filed timely objections. (Doc. 29.) On September 24, 2025, Petitioner filed 20 supplemental authority. (Doc. 30.) 21 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 22 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 23 objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and 24 proper analysis. 25 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 26 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 27 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 28 allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 1 | § 2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may only issue a certificate of 2 | appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 3 || petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 4 | to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 5 | U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 6 | demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 7 | his... part.” Miller-El,

. 8 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 9 | determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be 10 | allowed to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial 11 | of aconstitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 29, 2025 (Doc. 28) are 14 ADOPTED IN FULL. 15 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 16 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 17 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 50 Dated: _ October 13, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28