Allen v. Unknown Party

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS ORDERED the 6 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 USC § 2241 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this matter. In the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 11/10/20.(BAC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
John Scott Allen,
10
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
R. Rhodes, Acting Warden, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 18-132-TUC-CKJ (JR)
ORDER

15

On September 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and

16

Recommendation (Doc. 16) in which she recommends the Court dismiss with prejudice the

17

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6). The Report and Recommendation

18

advised the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), any

19

party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with

20

a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed within the time

21

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After an independent review, the Court finds it is

22

appropriate to adopt the Report and Recommendation and dismiss the Amended Petition for

23

Writ of Habeas Corpus.

24

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

25

1.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED.

26

2.

The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is

27
28

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this

1
2

matter.
4.

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

3

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

4

reasonable could not “debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

5

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve

6

encouragement to proceed further’.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see

7

also Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970, 974 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2011) (“COA is not required to appeal

8

the denial of a § 2241 petition filed by a person in federal custody”).

9

DATED this 10th day of November, 2020.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-