(HC) Aranzubia v. Merlak ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICO ARANZUBIA, No. 1:19-cv-01569-NONE-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 13) 13 ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 14 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 12) 15 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 16 STEVEN MERLAK, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 17 ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE Respondent. 18 19 20 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 21 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition claims eligibility for relief under the 22 First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). (Doc. No 1.) On 23 June 3, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending 24 that respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as moot be granted in light of the fact that 25 petitioner had conceded in a separate matter that he had obtained the requested relief under the 26 FSA. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and 27 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one days from the date of 28 service of that order. To date, no party has filed objections. The court notes that the findings and 2.649 UV VRP RMVUUPTPOTI Ar FIR Vie PY ee 1 || recommendations served on petitioner were returned to the court by the U.S. Postal Service as 2 | “Undeliverable, Unable to forward” on June 9, 2020, thereby supporting the conclusion that 3 | petitioner has been released from custody. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 5 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 6 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 The court notes that in the event a notice of appeal was nonetheless filed in this action, a 8 | certificate of appealability is not required because this is not a final order in a habeas proceeding 9 | in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. See Forde v. 10 | U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997). 11 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 12 1. The findings and recommendations, filed June 3, 2020 (Doc. No. 13), are 13 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 14 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED; 15 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and 16 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file. 17 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ | Dated: _ July 16, 2020 Yi A Dred 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28