# (HC) Zinman v. California Board of Parole Hearings

> District Court, E.D. California · August 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11137932

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 28, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11137932

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JUSTIN MARCUS ZINMAN, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-00687-KES-HBK (HC)
)
12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
13 v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE
14 CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE ) CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE
HEARINGS, ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
15 Respondent. )
) Docs. 1, 16
16 )
17
Petitioner Justin Marcus Zinman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for
18
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United
19
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
The assigned magistrate judge conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules
21
Governing Section 2254 Cases, and on July 21, 2025, issued findings and recommendations
22
recommending that the petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Doc. 16.
23
Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any
24
objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Petitioner timely filed
25
objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 17.
26
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de
27
novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings
28
1 and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The objections restate
2 petitioner’s general allegation, made in his petition and in the response to the order to show cause,
3 that the State of California is biased against him, but they fail to establish any basis to excuse
4 petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state remedies. See Doc. 17.
5 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a
6 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed only in certain circumstances.
7 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a court denies a habeas
8 petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason
9 could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that
10 jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
11 further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the
12 petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more
13 than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537
14 U.S. at 338. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that
15 the petition should be denied debatable or wrong, or that the issues presented are deserving of
16 encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of
17 the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
18 appealability.
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 21, 2025, Doc. 16, are
3 ADOPTED in full;
4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED;
5 3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability;
6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending deadlines/motions and
7 CLOSE the case.
8
? IT IS SO ORDERED. _
10 4h
Dated: _ August 28, 2025
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11137932. Public record. Not legal advice.