(HC) Larios v. Alomari

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROQUE LARIOS, JR., No. 1:24-cv-00302-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE, DECLINING 14 v. TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING 15 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 16 ISMAEL ALOMARI, Warden, Doc. 37 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner Roque Larios, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred 22 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On May 29, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 24 deny the petition on its merits. Doc. 37. Those findings and recommendations were served upon 25 all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 26 days after service. On June 12, 2025, petitioner filed objections to the findings and 27 recommendations. Doc. 38. 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 1 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 2 Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 3 analysis. Petitioner’s objections repeat arguments that the findings and recommendations 4 considered and correctly addressed, see id., and those arguments need not be readdressed. 5 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 6 whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 7 has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 8 allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–336 (2003). If a 9 court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if 10 jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional 11 claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 12 proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While 13 the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 14 than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. 15 at 338. 16 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 17 determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the petition is deserving 18 of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the 19 denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 29, 2025, Doc. 37, are adopted 3 in full; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied with prejudice; 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 6 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 4 8 g | SO ORDERED. _ 10 Dated: _ July 18, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28