1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGEL M. GARZA, No. 1:23-cv-01723 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 55)

14 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT TAMMY CAMPBELL, OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING 15 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Doc. Respondent. 61), AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 16 TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 17 ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 18 19 Angel M. Garza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition 20 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On May 6, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to 23 deny the petition on its merits. (Doc. 55.) After having been granted an extension of time, on 24 June 23, 2025, Petitioner filed objections. (Doc. 58.) 25 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 26 case. In his objections, Petitioner essentially reargues his claims. Having carefully reviewed the 27 matter, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 28 are supported by the record and proper analysis. The petition will be denied. 1 In addition, on July 7, 2025, Petitioner filed a request for judicial notice. (Doc. 61) It 2 appears Petitioner wishes the Court to notice that his claims and facts supporting those claims are 3 unresolved. Petitioner also claims there are additional facts that were not considered. Insofar as 4 the federal court’s review “is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated 5 the claim on the merits,” Cullen v. Pinholster,

, 181 (2011), the Court has reviewed 6 all relevant facts. Furthermore, the Court has reviewed all claims presented and finds them to be 7 without merit. Petitioner’s request to notice that the claims and facts remain unresolved is 8 DENIED. 9 In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 10 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 11 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 13 appealability is

, which provides as follows:

14 (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 15 appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

16 (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 17 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. 18 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 19 appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

20 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 21 court; or

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

23 (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 24 right.

25 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). 26 If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 27 appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 1 |

(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that 2 || “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 3 | been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 4 | encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting 5 | Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1983)). 6 In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial 7 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 8 | appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 9 | entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 10 | proceed further. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 11 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 6, 2025, (Doc. 55), are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED with prejudice. 15 3. Petitioner’s request for judicial notice is DENIED. 16 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 17 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 18 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | Dated: _December 5, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28