Mohammad Khan v. Steve Langford
Filing
17
ORDER Adopting the Report & Recommendation; Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition; Dismissing the Action With Prejudice; Directing Separate Final Judgment Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank for Report and Recommend ation (Issued) 16 , 9 . The Report and Recommendation [Doc #16] is ADOPTED. The Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc #9] is DENIED. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the Court will enter judgment by separate document. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). (hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
WESTERN DIVISION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
____________________________________
)
MOHAMMAD KHAN,
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
STEVE LANGFORD (Warden),
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________
No. LA CV 17-02750-VBF-KS
ORDER
Adopting the Report & Recommendation;
Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition;
Dismissing the Action With Prejudice;
Directing Separate Final Judgment;
Terminating and Closing Action (JS-6)
18
19
This is an action for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant
20
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to her authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), title 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 636(b)(1)(B), and C.D. Cal. Local Civil Rule 72-3.3, the United States Magistrate Judge
22
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 29, 2018. See CM/ECF
23
Document (“Doc”) Doc 16. Petitioner has not filed objections to the R&R within the time
24
allotted by Local Civil Rule 72-3.3. See Sudduth v. Soto, No. 2016 WL 4035337, *1 (C.D.
25
Cal. July 12, 2016) (“This Court never rules on an R&R without waiting for the objection
26
deadline to pass, and it will not rule on the R&R here until at least one week after . . .
27
28
-1-
1
[petitioner]’s objection deadline elapses . . . .”). Nor has petitioner sought an extension of
2
the objection deadline. Accordingly, the Court proceeds without waiting further.
3
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the Second Amended
4
Habeas Petition filed July 21, 2017 (Doc 9), the respondent’s Return (Doc 12), petitioner’s
5
traverse filed November 20, 2017 (Doc 14), the R&R (Doc 16), and the applicable law.
6
7
By its terms, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires de novo review only
8
of those portions of an R&R to which a party has specifically objected. See Dawson v.
9
Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)( C) and US v.
10
Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also US v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
11
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The Ninth Circuit holds that absent a timely objection purporting
12
to identify specific defects in the R&R, the District Judge has no obligation to review the
13
R&R at all. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (en banc); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
14
140, 152, 106 S. Ct. 466, 473 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the
15
Magistrates Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report.[.]”)).
16
Accord Mario v. P&C Food Markets, 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002).
17
“Nonetheless, the Magistrates Act does not preclude a district judge from reviewing
18
an R&R to make sure that it recommends a legally permissible and appropriate outcome
19
(based on sound reasoning and valid precedent) if she chooses to do so.” Juarez v. Katavich,
20
2016 WL 2908238, *2 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2016) (citing Beard, 2013 WL 3934188 at *1
21
(quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154)). “‘Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R.
22
Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that [w]hen no timely objection is filed, the Court review the
23
magistrate’s recommendations for clear error on the face of the record.’” Juarez, 2016 WL
24
2908238 at *2 (quoting Beard, 2013 WL 3934188 at *1).
25
Out of an abundance of caution, then, the Court has reviewed the R&R. On
26
either clear-error or de novo review, the Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in
27
28
-2-
1
the R&R. Therefore the Court will adopt the R&R and implement its recommendations.
2
ORDER
3
4
The Report and Recommendation [Doc #16] is ADOPTED.
5
The Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc #9] is DENIED.
6
As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the Court will enter judgment by separate
7
document. See Jayne v. Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).1
8
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
9
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).
10
11
Dated: March 8, 2018
12
___________________________
13
Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank
Senior United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
“As a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner is not required to obtain
a certificate of appealability (‘COA’) in order to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals in this
case.” Fiorito v. Entzel, 2018 WL 702834, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2018) (John Walter, J.) (citing,
inter alia, Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that plain language of 28
U.S.C. § 2253( c)(1) does not require federal prisoners bringing section 2241 actions to obtain a
COA unless the putative 2241 petition “is merely a ‘disguised’ section 2255 petition”)).
27
“Our circuit interprets section 2253 to require only habeas petitioners in custody pursuant to
a state-court judgment to obtain a COA before appealing a final order denying a section 2241 claim.”
Tomlinson v. Caraway, 2014 WL 4656432, *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014) (citing Harrison, 519
F.3d at 958). Accord Stryker v. Bear, – F. App’x -, 2018 WL 921974, *1 (10th Cir. 2018).
28
-3-
26
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?