1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAJUAN BELL, No. 1:23-cv-01564-JLT-EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

14 MARCUS POLLARD, TO CLOSE CASE, AND DECLINING TO

ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

15 Respondent. (Doc. 15) 16

17 18 JaJuan Bell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting the trial court erred in granting a motion to strike 20 his plea. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge found “the state court’s denial of Petitioner’s claim 21 challenging the striking of the jeopardy plea was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application 22 of, clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of fact.” 23 (Doc. 15 at 32.) In addition, the magistrate judge found the state’s “decision was not ‘so lacking 24 in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond 25 any possibility of fairminded disagreement.’” (Id. at 32-33, quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 26 U.S. 86, 103 (2011).) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the petition for writ of 27 habeas corpus be denied. (Id. at 33.) 28 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 1 any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 15 at 33.) The Court advised Petitioner that the 2 “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 3 Court’s order.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) 4 Petitioner did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 5 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 6 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 7 are supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 9 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 10 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 11 allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. 12 § 2253. When the Court denies a habeas petition on the merits, it may only issue a certificate of 13 appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the 14 petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate 15 to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 16 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While Petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 17 demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 18 his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 19 In the present case, reasonable jurists would not find the determination that the petition 20 should be denied debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. 21 Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 22 Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 23 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 6, 2024 (Doc. 15) are 24 ADOPTED in full. 25 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 26 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 27 /// 28 /// 1 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4| Dated: _ August 8, 2024 Charis [Tourn

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28