1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESS RICO MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-01214 JLT CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 PEOPLE FOR THE STATE OF CLOSE THE CASE, AND DECLINING TO CALIFORNIA, ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. 7) 16 17 Upon preliminary screening of this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations 19 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as an unauthorized successive 20 petition and otherwise untimely, and that the court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 (Doc. 7.) Petitioner timely filed objections. (Doc. 12.) 22 Petitioner argues that his petition is not successive because “the factual allegations rest on 23 ‘new [not previously alleged] legal authority’” (id. at 5), specifically, California’s Racial Justice 24 Act (adding

). However, the magistrate judge correctly found that, “[t]o the 25 extent Petitioner’s citation to California Penal Code § 745 can be interpreted as an argument that 26 he is bringing his petition pursuant to a new rule of law, this state statute does not equate to a 27 ‘new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.’” (Doc. 7 at 3) (quoting

(b)(2)(A).) Petitioner otherwise does not 1 | address the magistrate judge’s findings that the petition was unauthorized and untimely. 2 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 3 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 4 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court now turns to whether a 6 | certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 7 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 8 || allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 9 | § 2253. If the Court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds, it may only issue a 10 | certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states 11 | valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 12 | debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 13 | U.S. 473, 484 (2000.) In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find 14 | the determination that the petition is successive debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner stated a 15 | valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a 16 || certificate of appealability. Thus, Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 18, 2025 (Doc. 7) are 18 ADOPTED in full. 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice 20 as an unauthorized successive petition. 21 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 22 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ October 24, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28