Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01066/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01066-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON ZHANG GAO,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, CALIFORNIA 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01066-DAD-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 15)

Petitioner Jason Zhang Gao is a parolee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 13.) The matter was 

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On October 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the pending petition be denied for failure to state a claim and for failure to 

comply with a court order directing him to file a second amended petition addressing the 

previously not deficiencies in his previously filed petitions. (Doc. No. 15.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

/////

/////

Case 1:19-cv-01066-DAD-SKO Document 18 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

to be filed within ten (10) days after service. (Id.) To date, no objections to those findings and 

recommendations have been filed by petitioner.

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including petitioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Finally, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to 

appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain 

circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). Specifically, the federal 

rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court issuing an order 

denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of appealability. See Rules 

Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard, id. at (c)(3).

“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required 

to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists 

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack 

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made such a showing. 

Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued.

For the reasons set forth above,

1. The October 23, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 15) are adopted in 

full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 13) is denied;

/////

 

1

 Five days after the pending findings and recommendations were issued and served on petitioner 

at his P.O. Box at California Correctional Institution, petitioner filed a notice of change of address

as a result of him being granted parole . (See Doc. No. 16.) Thereafter, the court reserved 

petitioner with the pending findings and recommendations and anther order at his updated address

of record. Neither the reserved findings and recommendations nor the court’s subsequent order 

have been returned to the court as undeliverable.

Case 1:19-cv-01066-DAD-SKO Document 18 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and

4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01066-DAD-SKO Document 18 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 3