(HC) Rivera v. Warden
Filing
15
ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/24/25 ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations IN FULL; GRANTING 11 Motion to Dismiss; and DISMISSING the 1 Petition. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk KML)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FELIX RIVERA,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
Case No. 2:23-cv-02576-DAD-JDP (HC)
v.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
HABEAS PETITION
WARDEN,
15
Respondent.
(Doc. Nos. 11, 14)
16
Petitioner Felix Rivera, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a
17
18
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States
19
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On October 9, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
21
recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11) the petition be granted. (Doc.
22
No. 14.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that the government had established that
23
petitioner is the subject of a final order of removal and is therefore not eligible for early release
24
under the First Step Act. (Doc. No. 14 at 2) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i)). The findings
25
and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
1
1
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after their service.1 Neither
2
party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations and the time in which to do so has
3
passed.
4
5
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly:
6
1.
7
The findings and recommendations issued on October 9, 2024 (Doc. No. 14) are
adopted in full;
8
2.
9
Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED and the petition is
dismissed; and
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.2
10
3.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
January 24, 2025
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The docket in this action reflects that the findings and recommendations were served by mail
upon petitioner at his address of record. However, they were returned to the court as
undeliverable. According to the Bureau of Prisons inmate locator, petitioner remains in custody
at the same institution identified in his address of record with the court. In any event, it is the
petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant
to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
2
Because petitioner is a federal prisoner bringing a § 2241 petition, a certificate of appealability
is not required. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The plain language
of [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c)(1) does not require a petitioner to obtain a COA in order to appeal the
denial of a § 2241 petition.”).
2
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?