Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01398/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01398-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVIS CUELLAR,

Petitioner,

v.

MADERA COUNTY SHERIFF,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-01398-KES-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 

AND CLOSE CASE

(Doc. 6)

Petitioner Travis Cuellar is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred 

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 21, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations to dismiss the petition pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 

Doc. 6. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice 

that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. On 

December 2, 2024, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 8. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 

Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

Case 1:24-cv-01398-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 2
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

analysis. 

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 

has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 

allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 

U.S.C. § 2253. Where, as here, the Court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without 

reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the Court should issue a certificate of appealability 

“if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial 

of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a 

plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a 

reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or 

that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. 

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the determination 

that the petition should be dismissed debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed 

further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 21, 2024, Doc. 6, are

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01398-KES-SKO Document 9 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 2