(HC) Givens v. Warden at USP Atwater

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING 6 Findings and Recommendations, dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and directing the Clerk of Court to close the case signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/5/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY LATRELL GIVENS,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15
16
17

v.
WARDEN AT USP ATWATER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0317 JLT EPG (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
CLOSE THE CASE
(Doc. 6)

Gregory Latrell Givens is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his confinement is unlawful because the United

19

States Marshal did not sign and file the return portion of Petitioner’s criminal judgment upon his

20

commitment as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(c). (See Doc. 1.)

21

The magistrate judge reviewed the petition and found that “Petitioner does not contest the

22

accuracy of the judgment,” and does not show “the alleged failure to execute the return has affected his

23

sentence or his rights.” (Doc. 6 at 3.) In addition, the magistrate judge observed: Petitioner has not

24

provided, and the Court has not found, any authority holding that failure to endorse and file the return

25

section of a defendant’s judgment and comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3621(c) renders the defendant’s

26

confinement unlawful and requires release from custody.” (Id.) On the other hand, the magistrate

27

judge noted that “circuit courts have found that the statute about endorsement of Returns does not

28

entitle Petitioner to be released from custody even if it is not followed.” (Id. at 3-4, citing Annamalai v.
1

1

Warden, 760 F. App’x 843, 849 (11th Cir. 2019); Hall v. Loretto, 556 F. App’x 72, 73-74 (3d Cir.

2

2014) [modifications adopted].) Therefore, the magistrate judge found Petitioner fails “to state a

3

cognizable federal habeas claim” and recommended the Court dismiss the petition. (Id. at 4.)

4

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any

5

objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 6 at 4.) The Court advised Petition that the “failure to file

6

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id.,

7

citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file objections,

8

and the time to do so has passed.

9

Although Petitioner did not file objections, Petitioner subsequently filed requests for judicial

10

notice related to the lack of signature. (Doc. 7, 8.) These documents do not address the finding of the

11

magistrate judge that the lack of signature from a U.S. Marshal does not render Petitioner’s

12

confinement unlawful. (See id.) In addition, Petitioner’s subsequent filings to do not state a cognizable

13

claim for habeas relief and do not establish he is entitled to proceed on the petition.

14

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having

15

carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported

16

by the record and proper analysis. Therefore, the Court ORDERS:

17

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 17, 2024 (Doc. 6) are ADOPTED
in full.

18
19

2.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.

20

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 5, 2024

24
25
26
27
28
2