Whether a state court's denial of a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 can be appealed when the underlying petition fails to state a debatable federal constitutional claim

No question identified. : 2A mW 2 dene He GH. Dock EAM BF. VS ac ot ate o/ Hf Ww. Op of, lo THe Thee Reed ore we Lad — AS hotpetrzmrtd) 1 Fle yINMocvoe ; (et TIO). Ceplanllout 4 Remy 7 Moa Les ey YO Stel Eaed Tee (Noczeiliple Roc LI 7 WeSE [Reczei/ di Besalifed. Trev" Aeoeving pw ie A cw. Lae oe ey me. dD : (* Ch ¥o( Sony Me THe PRE PUMA oF CefL(fofyly PO) Ts File Bary Ces Sui aoausl/ . peed iy, Som Rad le Le a a fn (Rev, 9/97) ‘ODMA | IS= ey “moth PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL BY PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY (Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; 28 U.S.C. § 1746) L, Av fe ofc u CCA , declare: Tam over 18 years of age and a party to this action. I ama resident of S USP. Sar Alle 4 Prison, aa in the county of ANA State of California, My prison address is: |e Ga /d-d ; On Oct K bs Poh — A I served the attached: Moat on the parties herein by placing true and correct copies thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully paid, in the United States Mail in a deposit box so provided at the above-named correctional institution in which I am presently confined. The envelope was addressed as follows: OS Sollleme csstttC5Ye I declare under fenalty 6f perjury under'the laws of tf United States of Ame ica that the fgregoing is true and correct. Executed on i Case: 25-1284, 07/29/2025, DktEntry: 9.1, Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F L E D JUL 29 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1284 D.C. No. Central District of California, Los Angeles ORDER ARTHUR TORLUCCI, Petitioner Appellant, Vv. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent — Appellee. Before: CALLAHAN and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Appellant’s filings (Docket Entry Nos. 3 & 8) are construed as a request for a certificate of appealability. So construed, the request for a certificate of appealability is denied because the underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition fails to state a federal constitutional claim debatable among jurists of reason. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)-(3); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (“When ... the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the petitioner seeking a COA must show both ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. Case: 25-1284, 10/23/2025, DktEntry: 12.1, Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F | L E D FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ARTHUR TORLUCCI, No. 25-1284 D.C. No. Central District of California, Los Angeles ORDER Petitioner Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent — Appellee. Before: S.R. THOMAS and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Appellant’s filing (Docket Entry No. 10) is construed as a motion for reconsideration and is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10. To the extent appellant intends to seek authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, this clerk will serve this order and Form 12, the standard application for leave to file a second or successive motion, on appellant. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.