1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL J. GADDY, No. 1:21-cv-01270-NONE-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION v. AND/OR MANDAMUS, DIRECTING 14 CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT

JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE

15 AND THEN TO CLOSE CASE, AND SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 16 al., APPEALABILITY 17 Respondents. (Doc. No. 3)

18 19 20 Petitioner Michael J. Gaddy is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with a petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus. This matter was referred to a United 22 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On August 25, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 recommending that the pending petition be dismissed. (Doc. No. 3.) Those findings and 25 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 26 were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. On September 24, 2021, petitioner filed 27 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 4.) 28 ///// 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner's 3 objections, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are 4 supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for 5 questioning the magistrate judge's analysis. 6 In addition, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner 7 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of 8 his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 9 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the 10 court may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing 11 of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, 12 the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, 13 agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 14 presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 15 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 16 In the present case, the court finds that petitioner has not made the required substantial 17 showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 18 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 19 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 20 proceed further. Thus, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 Accordingly, 22 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 25, 2021, (Doc. No. 3), are 23 adopted in full; 24 2. The petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus is dismissed with prejudice; 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 2 || purpose of closing the case and then to close the case; and 3 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " 5 Li. wh F Dated: _ October 13, 2021 Sea 1" S098 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28