(HC) Best v. Lake ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON BEST, No. 1:19-cv-00026-DAD-JLT 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 14 S. LAKE, Warden, RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 15 Respondent. HABEAS CORPUS 16 (Doc. Nos. 1, 16, 17) 17 18 19 Petitioner Jason Best is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 22 On June 12, 2019, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that 23 petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that the court lacked jurisdiction over 24 his claims. (Doc. No. 16.) On July 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 25 recommendations, recommending that the motion to dismiss be denied but that the petition for 26 writ of habeas corpus be denied on the merits. (Doc. No. 17.) The findings and 27 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 28 filed within twenty-one days from the date of service of that order. To date, no party has filed 1 | objections to the findings and recommendations, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 3 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 4 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 In addition, “[t]he plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) does not require a [certificate 6 | of appealability] here because this is . .. an order denying a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that is not a final 7 | order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by 8 | aState court.” Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Ojo v. INS, 9 | 106 F.3d 680, 681-82 (Sth Cir. 1997) and Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996)). 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 29, 2019 (Doc. No. 17) are 12 adopted in full; 13 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is denied; 14 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits with prejudice; and 15 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ "7 | Dated: _ October 22, 2019 DL A Dong 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28