Brim v. Rios

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 12 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; and ORDER Referring Case Back to United States Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/4/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
BRIAN KEITH BRIM,
12
Petitioner,
13
14

v.

15
H. A. RIOS, JR., Warden,
16
Respondent.
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-01293-AWI-JLT HC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 15)
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION
TO DISMISS PETITION (Doc. 12)
ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

18
19
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
21
On November 1, 2011, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition on the
22
grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider the challenge by a
23
federal petitioner serving a life sentence to a prison disciplinary proceeding. (Doc. 12). On
24
December 8, 2011, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and Recommendations
25
recommending that Respondent's motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. 15). The Findings and
26
Recommendations was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed
27
within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On December 28, 2011, Respondent filed
28
1

1

objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 16). On January 12,

2

2012, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent's objections. (Doc. 17).

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

4

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Respondent's

5

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

6

supported by the record and proper analysis. Respondent has cited no binding authority that

7

deprives this court of jurisdiction under Section 2241 to hear a federal prisoner's due process

8

challenges to a disciplinary hearing if the petitioner is serving a life sentence and/or cannot earn

9

good-time credits. Respondent's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

10
11

Judge's analysis.
Moreover, no certificate of appealability is required because the detention complained of

12

does not arise out of a process issued by a state court and it is not a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §

13

2255. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997).

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued December 8, 2011 (Doc. 15), is ADOPTED IN

16

FULL;

17

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12), is DENIED; and,

18

3. The case is referred back to the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for

19

further proceedings.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated:
0m8i78

February 4, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2