(HC) Holt v. Brewer ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEANGELO DESHONG HOLT, No. 2:22-cv-00710-DAD-DB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING 14 DAVID BREWER, HABEAS PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 10, 16) 16 17 Petitioner DeAngelo DeShong Holt is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 18, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) be granted due to petitioner’s 22 failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 16.) 23 Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that petitioner’s allegations—that the Bureau of 24 Prisons (“BOP”) is hindering his Residential Re-entry Center (“RCC”) placement under 18 25 U.S.C. § 3621(b) by following 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21 and BOP Program statement 26 7310.04—are insufficient to state a cognizable claim because petitioner has failed to allege that 27 he “has been improperly categorically excluded from RCC placement or that the BOP has 28 otherwise exceeded its statutory authority.” (Id. at 6–7.) Those findings and recommendations 1 were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 2 thirty (30) days from the date of service. (Id. at 5.) After receiving an extension of time in which 3 to do so, on March 20, 2023, petitioner filed objections to the pending findings and 4 recommendations. (Doc. No. 19.) Respondent did not file objections of his own or a response to 5 petitioner’s objections. 6 In his objections, petitioner merely repeats the arguments that he presented in his 7 opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss and that were already properly addressed in the 8 pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 19.) In particular, petitioner argues that his 9 case is “just like the case” Rodriquez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2008), in which the Ninth 10 Circuit explained that Congress expressly intended for the BOP to consider each of the five 11 factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) in making determinations as to the transfer and 12 placement of prisoners. (Doc. No. 19 at 1–2) (citing Rodriquez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 13 2008)). However, in that case, a federal prisoner challenged the BOP’s categorical policy of not 14 considering a prisoner’s eligibility for RRC placement until 11–13 months immediately preceding 15 the prisoner’s projected release date. Rodriquez, 541 F.3d at 1181, 1187 (concluding that 16 “[b]ecause the BOP regulations categorically exclude [RRC] placement of inmates with more 17 than ten percent of their sentences remaining, they necessarily fail to apply the mandatory factors 18 listed in § 3621(b) to those inmates.”). Here, as explained in the findings and recommendations, 19 petitioner has not identified any categorial exclusion that he alleges has been applied in his case. 20 (Doc. No. 16 at 7.) Accordingly, petitioner’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the 21 pending findings and recommendations. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 23 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 24 including petitioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss the 26 pending petition will be granted. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 18, 2023 (Doc. No. 16) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the pending petition (Doc. No. 10) is granted; 5 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed, without prejudice, 6 due to petitioner’s failure to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; 7 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability'; and 8 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 25, 2023 Dae A. 2, sel 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 | Because petitioner is a federal prisoner bringing a § 2241 petition, a certificate of appealability 27 || is not required. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The plain language of [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c)(1) does not require a petitioner to obtain a COA in order to appeal the 28 | denial of a § 2241 petition.”).