(HC) Drone v. Federal Bureau of Prisons ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID DRONE, No. 2:21-CV-0063-KJM-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. 14 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the Court is Respondent’s unopposed 19 motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 5. 20 Respondent argues the case should be dismissed because: (1) the Court lacks 21 statutory authority to compel the Bureau of Prisons to take discretionary action; (2) the Court 22 lacks jurisdiction because Petitioner’s claim is not ripe; and (3) Petitioner cannot challenge the 23 conditions of his confinement by way of a habeas petition. See ECF No. 5. After Petitioner 24 failed to file an opposition within the time specified by the Local Rules, the Court issued a minute 25 order on September 17, 2022, advising Petitioner that failure to oppose the motion could be 26 construed as consent to the relief requested. See ECF No. 7. The minute order provided an 27 additional 30 days within which to file an opposition. See id. To date, Petitioner has not filed an 28 opposition, and the Court now construes Petitioner’s failure to oppose Respondent’s motion as 1 || consent to the relief requested. See Local Rule 230(c), (1). 2 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Respondent’s 3 || unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5, be granted. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 5 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 6 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 7 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 8 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 9 || Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 | Dated: November 1, 2022 Ss..c0_, DENNIS M. COTA 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28