Opinion
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
Petitioner Leslie A. Lamer ("Petitioner" or "Lamer") has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"), challenging his state court convictions for lewd or lascivious acts involving children under California Penal Code § 288. The Honorable Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending the Petition be denied. In the Report, Judge Porter analyzed Lamar's claims, and determined that the state court's denial of those claims was neither contrary to, nor involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Lamar made no specific or substantive objections to Judge Porter's findings in the Report. The Court adopted Judge Porter's Report, denying the Petition. Petitioner now requests a Certificate of Appealability ("COA") of denial of his Petition. Petitioner's request is DENIED.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, there is no appeal as a matter of right. A judge may grant a COA "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Turner v. Calderon , 281 F.3d 851, 864-865 (9th Cir. 2002). "A substantial showing includes showing 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." Id. at 865 (internal citation and quotations omitted) (internal alterations omitted). "Thus, where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Id . (internal citations and alterations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the issues Lamer raised in his Petition and determined that the state court's denial of his claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. This finding is not debatable among reasonable jurists, and Lamer's claims do not deserve further encouragement. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for COA is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.