1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRENTICE FOREMAN, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00390 JLT EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS, DENYING PETITIONER’S

14 TRENT ALLEN, REQUEST FOR STAY, DIRECTING CLERK

OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND

15 Respondent. DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

16 (Docs. 1, 23, 24) 17 18 Prentice Foreman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The assigned magistrate judge found that 20 Petitioner did not raise a colorable cumulative error claim and his request for stay was not 21 warranted. (Doc. 24 at 48-49.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended the petition for 22 habeas corpus and Petitioner’s request for a stay be denied. (Id. at 49.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 24 any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 24 at 50.) The Court advised him that the “failure 25 to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 26 order.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not 27 file objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this 28 Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court 1 | concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court also declines to 3 | issue a certificate of appealability in connection with his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 motion. A court may 4 | issue a certificate of appealability where the moving party has “made a substantial showing of the 5 | denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 6 | 327 (2003). If a court denies a habeas petition on the merits, a certificate of appealability will 7 | only issue “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, 537 U.S. at 327 (citing Slack v. 10 | McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of 11 | his case, he must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of 12 | the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Jd. at 323-24 (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 1039-1040). 13 | This requires proof of “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere 14 | good faith on his or her part.” Jd. at 338 (internal quotation marks omitted). 15 The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that the 16 | petition should be denied is debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed 17 | further. Petitioner has not made the required “substantial showing” of the denial of a 18 | constitutional right. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2). For this reason, the Court declines to issue a 19 || certificate of appealability. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 7, 2023 (Doc. 24) are 21 ADOPTED in full. 22 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 23 3. Petitioner’s request for a stay (Doc. 23) is DENIED. 24 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 25 5. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 26 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. og | Dated: _January 25, 2024 Charis [Tourn > TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE