(HC) Stanger v. Phillips

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — — 8 — IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 9 — FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — — 11 — DANA AARON STANGER, No. 2:24-CV-2788-DJC-DMC-P — 12 — Petitioner, 13 ORDER v. — 14 — BRIAN PHILLIPS, — 15 — Respondent. — 16 — — 17 — 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 19 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 21 On July 16, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 22 herein which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties 23 may file objections within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings 24 and recommendations have been filed. 25 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to 26 be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 27 / / / 28 / / / Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before Petitioner 5 can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. 4 § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a ° certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has 6 made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. ’ § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which 8 issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate ? should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed on 0 procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can " show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable "8 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.” Morris 4 v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 's 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s re findings and recommendations, the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. "8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: "9 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 16, 2025, ECF No. 13, are 20 adopted in full. 21 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is denied. 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2s 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. — 24 — 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2° | Dated: September 2, 2025 Donel J bnetto 27 Hon. Daniel alabretta 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE