Allen v. Rhodes

D. Arizona

Allen v. Rhodes

DecidedNovember 12, 2020

Docket4:18-cv-00132

StatusUnknown

This text of Allen v. Rhodes (Allen v. Rhodes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Rhodes, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 John Scott Allen, ) 10 ) Petitioner, ) 11 ) No. CIV 18-132-TUC-CKJ (JR) vs. ) 12 ) R. Rhodes, Acting Warden, et al., ) ORDER 13 ) Respondents. ) 14 ) 15 On September 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 16) in which she recommends the Court dismiss with prejudice the 17 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6). The Report and Recommendation 18 advised the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), any 19 party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with 20 a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed within the time 21 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After an independent review, the Court finds it is 22 appropriate to adopt the Report and Recommendation and dismiss the Amended Petition for 23 Writ of Habeas Corpus. 24 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 25 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED. 26 2. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is 27 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 28 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this 1 || matter. 2 4. Pursuant to Rule 1 1(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event 3 || Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because 4 || reasonable could not “debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 5 || been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 6 || encouragement to proceed further’.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see 7 || also Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970, 974 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2011) (COA is not required to appeal 8 |] the denial of a § 2241 petition filed by a person in federal custody’). 9 DATED this 10th day of November, 2020. 10 La etey KO C Jor encore 12 Cindy K. Jor§énso B United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 John Scott Allen, ) 10 ) Petitioner, ) 11 ) No. CIV 18-132-TUC-CKJ (JR) vs. ) 12 ) R. Rhodes, Acting Warden, et al., ) ORDER 13 ) Respondents. ) 14 ) 15 On September 9, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 16) in which she recommends the Court dismiss with prejudice the 17 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6). The Report and Recommendation 18 advised the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), any 19 party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with 20 a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed within the time 21 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After an independent review, the Court finds it is 22 appropriate to adopt the Report and Recommendation and dismiss the Amended Petition for 23 Writ of Habeas Corpus. 24 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 25 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED. 26 2. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is 27 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 28 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this 1 || matter. 2 4. Pursuant to Rule 1 1(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event 3 || Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because 4 || reasonable could not “debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 5 || been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 6 || encouragement to proceed further’.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see 7 || also Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970, 974 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2011) (COA is not required to appeal 8 |] the denial of a § 2241 petition filed by a person in federal custody’). 9 DATED this 10th day of November, 2020. 10 La etey KO C Jor encore 12 Cindy K. Jor§énso B United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Allen v. Rhodes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-rhodes-azd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack