1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LELAND HAYNES, No. 2:24-cv-00581-DC-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 TRACY JOHNSON, (Doc. No. 11) 15 Respondent.

16 17 Petitioner Leland Haynes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this application for a 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 22, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. No. 11.) On December 3, 23 2024, Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.) The court 24 reviewed Petitioner’s objections and finds they do not provide a basis upon which to reject the 25 findings and recommendations. 26 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 27 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 28 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 1 analysis. 2 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 3 a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 4 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed 5 only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 335–36 (2003);

2253. If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of 7 appealability only if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 8 petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 9 to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El,

(citing Slack v. 10 McDaniel,

(2000)). The petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his 11 case, but he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of 12 mere good faith on his or her part.” Miller-El,

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463

, 893 (1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, when the court denies 14 habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching an underlying constitutional claim, a court 15 should issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 16 petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 17 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack,

484. 19 In the present case, the court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 20 determination that the petition should be denied to be debatable or wrong, or that the issues 21 presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a 22 certificate of appealability. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The findings and recommendations filed on November 22, 2024 (Doc. No. 11) are 25 ADOPTED IN FULL; 26 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without 27 leave to amend for failure to state a claim; 28 ///// 1 3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 2 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 6 | Dated: _ December 16, 2025 EIU os Dena Coggins 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28