(HC) Grandos-Dominguez v. Warden, FCI Mendota ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMIRO ESTEBAN GRANDOS- No. 1:22-cv-01495-ADA-HBK (HC) DOMINGUEZ, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING FIRST 13 AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING 14 CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, 15 (ECF Nos. 6, 8) Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Ramiro Esteban Grandos-Dominguez (“Petitioner”) is a federal prisoner 19 proceeding pro se with a First Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 6.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 21 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On January 9. 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that the pending First Amended Petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF 24 No. 8.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained notice that 25 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of service. (Id. at 5.) On January 31, 26 2023, Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 9.) 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 28 de novo review of the case. Thus, having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 1 | objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 2 || proper analysis. Petitioner’s objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge’s 3 | analysis. 4 In his objections, Petitioner largely argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326, the statutory basis of his 5 | conviction for illegal reentry violation, is unconstitutional. (See ECF No. 9 at 2-3.) As a reminder, 6 | a§ 2241 petition is reserved for federal prisoners challenging “the manner, location, or conditions 7 || of a sentence’s execution.” Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008). Federal 8 || prisoners seeking to challenge the legality of their confinement must do so through a § 2255 motion. 9 | See Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012). Because Petitioner’s § 2255 motion to 10 | vacate remains pending in his court of conviction, the Western District of Texas, the Court finds 11 | that it is futile to transfer the instant petition to that district for consideration as a § 2255 motion. 12 | Therefore, the First Amended Petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 9, 2023, (ECF No. 8), are 15 adopted in full; 16 2. The First Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus, (ECF No. 6), is dismissed 17 for lack of jurisdiction; and 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions/deadlines and 19 close the case. 20 21 92 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: _ March 14, 2023 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28