Knox v. Laney
Filing
67
Opinion and Order. The Court adopts Judge Russo's F&R (Dkt. 65 ), as supplemented in this opinion. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 64 ) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 23 ) is DENI ED as moot. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 9/10/19 by Judge Karin J. Immergut. See attached order for further details.(Mailed to Pro Se party on 9/11/19.) (jy)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
STEVEN KNOX,
Petitioner,
Case No. 6:18-cv-00453-JR
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
GARRETT LANEY,
Respondent.
IMMERGUT, District Judge.
On August 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) (Dkt. 65), recommending that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
(Dkt. 64) be granted and Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 23) be
denied. Judge Russo further recommended that the Court enter a judgment of dismissal and
decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability. No party filed objections.
DISCUSSION
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de
novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no
objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not
preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte,” whether de novo or under another
standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
No party having filed objections, the Court has reviewed the F&R (Dkt. 65) and accepts
Judge Russo’s conclusion that Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is now moot. While the F&R
does not address whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the Ninth Circuit has
held that “a dismissal for mootness is a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.” Tur v. YouTube, Inc.,
562 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S.
66, 78–79 (2013). Dismissals for lack of jurisdiction “must be without prejudice.” Hampton v.
Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co. LLC, 869 F.3d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Russo’s F&R (Dkt. 65), as supplemented in this
opinion. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 64) is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 23) is DENIED as moot. This case is DISMISSED
without prejudice. The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability because
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of September, 2019.
/s/ Karin J. Immergut
Karin J. Immergut
United States District Judge
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER
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?