Brent Blake v. W.S. Pilier

C.D. California

Brent Blake v. W.S. Pilier

DecidedJuly 31, 2020

Docket5:19-cv-02442

StatusUnknown

This text of Brent Blake v. W.S. Pilier (Brent Blake v. W.S. Pilier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brent Blake v. W.S. Pilier, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRENT BLAKE, Case No. ED CV 19-02442-RGK (PD)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES 14 FELIPE MARTINEZ, JR.,1 MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent.

16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the 17 records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of United States 18 Magistrate Judge. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have 19 been filed. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and adopts it as 20 its own findings and conclusions. 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment will be entered 22 dismissing the Petition without prejudice. 23 24 25 1 Felipe Martinez, Jr., became the Warden of the Federal Correctional Complex in 26 Victorville, California, where Petitioner is currently incarcerated, and therefore is 27 substituted for the previous Respondent. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

28 1 As a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner is 2 || not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal to the Ninth 3 || Circuit Court of Appeals in this case. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 4 || 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) does not require 5 || federal prisoners bringing section 2241 petitions to obtain a certificate of 6 || appealability to appeal, unless the section 2241 petition is a section 2255 7 || petition in disguise”); see e.g., Tomlinson v. Caraway, No. 14-2094-VBF (KK), 8 | 2014 WL 4656482, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (adopting report and 9 || recommendation and noting that petitioner in federal custody was not 10 || required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his 11 || section 2241 petition). 12 13 || DATED: July 31, 2020. 14 15 J “Oo \Reweanm 16 R. GARY KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRENT BLAKE, Case No. ED CV 19-02442-RGK (PD)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES 14 FELIPE MARTINEZ, JR.,1 MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent.

16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the 17 records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of United States 18 Magistrate Judge. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have 19 been filed. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and adopts it as 20 its own findings and conclusions. 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment will be entered 22 dismissing the Petition without prejudice. 23 24 25 1 Felipe Martinez, Jr., became the Warden of the Federal Correctional Complex in 26 Victorville, California, where Petitioner is currently incarcerated, and therefore is 27 substituted for the previous Respondent. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

28 1 As a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner is 2 || not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal to the Ninth 3 || Circuit Court of Appeals in this case. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 4 || 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) does not require 5 || federal prisoners bringing section 2241 petitions to obtain a certificate of 6 || appealability to appeal, unless the section 2241 petition is a section 2255 7 || petition in disguise”); see e.g., Tomlinson v. Caraway, No. 14-2094-VBF (KK), 8 | 2014 WL 4656482, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (adopting report and 9 || recommendation and noting that petitioner in federal custody was not 10 || required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his 11 || section 2241 petition). 12 13 || DATED: July 31, 2020. 14 15 J “Oo \Reweanm 16 R. GARY KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brent Blake v. W.S. Pilier, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brent-blake-v-ws-pilier-cacd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack