Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00867/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00867-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Bowen
Petitioner
Schultz
Respondent

Document Text:

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

JERRY BOWEN,

Petitioner,

v.

SCHULTZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-0867 JLT EPG (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 

COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND 

CLOSE CASE

(Doc. 6)

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Jerry Bowen is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The assigned magistrate judge found the 

petition was unexhausted because Petitioner did not indicate that he submitted his claim to the 

California Supreme Court, and recommended the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice for 

failure to exhaust state court remedies. (Doc. 6.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 

any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 6 at 3.) The Court advised Petitioner the “[f]ailure 

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 

order.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not 

file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

Case 1:24-cv-00867-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/27/24 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

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 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, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 

appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of 

appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test 

the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or 

trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test 

the validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petition, it may only issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner 

makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To 

make a substantial showing, Petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether 

(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that 

the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

The Court finds Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists 

Case 1:24-cv-00867-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/27/24 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

would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus 

relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Thus, the Court 

declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS.

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 5, 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.

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

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00867-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 3