(HC) Goicochea v. Warden ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO GOICOCHEA, No. 2:23-cv-02505-DC-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 WARDEN, HABEAS PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 9) 16 17 Petitioner Antonio Goicochea is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 12, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to 22 prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. (Doc. No. 9.) In particular, Petitioner failed to 23 comply with the court’s January 24, 2024 order directing him to file an amended § 2241 petition 24 (Doc. No. 6) and failed to respond to the court’s July 12, 2024 order to Petitioner to show cause 25 why this action should not be dismissed (Doc. No. 8). In addition, the service copy of the July 12, 26 2024 order, which was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record, was returned to the court on 27 July 25, 2024 marked as “Undeliverable, no longer here.” Thus, pursuant to Local Rule 183, 28 Petitioner was required to file a notice of his change of address with the court no later than 1 October 3, 2024, and he has not done so. 2 The pending findings and recommendations were served upon the parties and contained 3 | notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (/d. at 4 | 3.) The service copy of the findings and recommendations, which was mailed to Petitioner at his 5 | address of record, was also returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable, [Return to Sender].”! 6 | To date, no objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed and the time 7 | in which to do so has passed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 9 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 10 | pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 9) are 13 adopted in full; 14 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed, without 15 prejudice;” 16 3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7) is denied as having been rendered 17 moot by this order; and 18 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 29 | Dated: _November 8, 2024 _ DUC Dena Coggins 23 United States District Judge 24 ' The court notes that according to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, Petitioner was 25 released from BOP custody on February 1, 2024. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. 26 > Because petitioner is a federal prisoner bringing a § 2241 petition, a certificate of appealability 27 || is not required. See Harrison vy. 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.”).