1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, No. 2:24-cv-03744-DAD-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

14 KEN CLARK, (Doc. No. 13) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Cecil Jerome Hatchett, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2025, judgment was 19 entered pursuant to this court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 20 for failing to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement, denying petitioner’s 21 motion for release on bail, and dismissing petitioner’s petition for federal habeas relief as an 22 unauthorized second or successive petition. (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.) On September 29, 2025, petitioner 23 timely filed a notice of appeal of this court’s order. (Doc. No. 10.) 24 On November 10, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this case to the 25 district court “for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability at the 26 court’s earliest convenience.” (Doc. No. 13 at 1) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 27 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997)). A certificate of appealability 28 may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 1 | denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate 2 | of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons 3 | why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 4 Where, as here, the court has denied relief on procedural grounds without reaching the 5 | underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of 6 | reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 7 | constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 8 | correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). But “[w]here a 9 | plain procedural bar is present . . . a reasonable jurist [cannot] conclude either that the district 10 | court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed 11 | further.” 7d. The court finds that the petitioner’s pending application is clearly barred since 12 | reasonable jurists would not differ on whether a motion for in forma pauperis should be denied 13 | for failure to provide the requisite documentation, nor would reasonable jurists differ on whether 14 | a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed. Accordingly, the court 15 | DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. " Dated: _ December 22, 2025 Dak A. 2d, aryek 18 DALE A. DROZD 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28