(HC) Coats v. Barr ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KODA ALSHAWN COATS, No. 1:21-cv-00182-NONE-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 WILLIAM BARR, TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND THEN 15 Respondent. TO CLOSE CASE; AND FINDING NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY TO BE 16 REQUIRED 17 (Doc. Nos. 1, 5) 18 19 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which he challenges the calculation of his sentence 21 and the release date set by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. 22 On February 18, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed due to petitioner’s failure to 24 exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 5 (finding petitioner submitted a request for 25 administrative remedy, which was denied, but did not file an appeal of the denial.) These 26 findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any 27 objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of that order. To 28 date, no party has filed objections. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 2 | court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 | court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the 4 | record and proper analysis. 5 The plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) does not require a certificate of 6 | appealability because this is an appeal from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus 7 | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention 8 | complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 114 9 | F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-82 (Sth Cir. 1997); Bradshaw y. 10 | Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). 11 Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 12 1. The findings and recommendations, filed February 18, 2021 (Doc. No. 5), are 13 adopted in full; 14 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 15 3. The clerk of court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 16 of closing the case and then to enter judgment and close the case; and 17 4. No certificate of appealability is required. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ | Dated: _ April 15, 2021 Vila A Drag 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28