(HC) McPherson v. Morales

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
Petitioner Michael B. McPherson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1 (“Petition”). The matter was referred
to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
The assigned magistrate judge conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, and on September 8, 2026, issued findings and recommendations
to dismiss the Petition as duplicative and, in the alternative, as frivolous. Doc. 6. Those findings
and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections
thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. The parties were advised that a
“failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights
on appeal.” Id. (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). Petitioner
timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations, asserting frivolous arguments that
MICHAEL B. MCPHERSON,
Petitioner,
v.
RAUL MORALES, WARDEN,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:26-cv-05665-KES-HBK (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE
CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Docs. 1, 6.
Case 1:26-cv-05665-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 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
he is entitled to relief as he is “sovereign,” “God,” and “king.” Doc. 7.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the court has reviewed this
matter de novo. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court concludes that the magistrate
judge’s Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
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. If a court denies a habeas
petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could
disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists
could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While a
petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more
than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537
U.S. at 338. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that
the Petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of
encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
Case 1:26-cv-05665-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 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
Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 8, 2026 (Doc. 6) are
ADOPTED in full;
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED;
3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability;
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending deadlines/motions and
CLOSE the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 11, 2026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-05665-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3