Erik Lindsey Smith v. Felipe Martinez

C.D. California

Erik Lindsey Smith v. Felipe Martinez

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 15, 2023·No. 5:22-cv-01470·Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:22-cv-01470-MWF-JDE Document 28 Filed 03/15/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:323

ERIK LINDSEY SMITH, ) Case No. 5:22-cv-01470-MWF-JDE ) Petitioner, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. ) ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF FILIPE MARTINEZ, Warden, ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE ) JUDGE ) Respondent. ) )

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1 “Petition”) filed by Erik Lindsey Smith (“Petitioner”), through counsel, the Motion to Dismiss the Petition (Dkt. 11, “Motion”), and supporting exhibits filed by Respondent Filipe Martinez (“Respondent”), the Opposition (Dkt. 16) to the Motion filed by Petitioner, the Reply (Dkt. 17) filed by Respondent, the Order re Further Briefing and Setting Oral Argument issued by the assigned magistrate judge (Dkt. 18), the supplemental brief filed by Petitioner (Dkt. 21), the supplemental brief filed by Respondent (Dkt. 22), and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on February 22, 2023 (Dkt. 25, “Report”). se 5:22-cv-01470-MWF-JDE Document 28 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2of2 Page ID#:32

No party filed a timely file any objection to the Report or timely sought additional time in which to do so. Nonetheless, this Court has reviewed the Report de novo. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of “seriousness.” (Report at 10-18). Specifically, this Court is persuaded by the reasoning in United States v. Caso, 723 F.3d 215, 223 (D.C. Cir. 2013), and the reliance of the Ninth Circuit on the Sentencing Guidelines in United States v. Hernandez-Vasquez, 513 F.3d 908, 919 (9" Cir. 2008), albeit for different purposes. This Court accordingly accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows: (1) Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11) is DENIED; (2) the Petition (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED; and (3) Judgment shall be entered conditionally granting a writ of habeas corpus /and ordering Respondent to release Petitioner on the 30th day after judgment is entered, subject to the filing of any further charges and proceedings in the Southern District of Florida before that date. Zz

Dated: March 15, 2023 United States District Judge

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

Case 5:22-cv-01470-MWF-JDE Document 28 Filed 03/15/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:323

ERIK LINDSEY SMITH, ) Case No. 5:22-cv-01470-MWF-JDE ) Petitioner, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. ) ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF FILIPE MARTINEZ, Warden, ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE ) JUDGE ) Respondent. ) )

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1 “Petition”) filed by Erik Lindsey Smith (“Petitioner”), through counsel, the Motion to Dismiss the Petition (Dkt. 11, “Motion”), and supporting exhibits filed by Respondent Filipe Martinez (“Respondent”), the Opposition (Dkt. 16) to the Motion filed by Petitioner, the Reply (Dkt. 17) filed by Respondent, the Order re Further Briefing and Setting Oral Argument issued by the assigned magistrate judge (Dkt. 18), the supplemental brief filed by Petitioner (Dkt. 21), the supplemental brief filed by Respondent (Dkt. 22), and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on February 22, 2023 (Dkt. 25, “Report”). se 5:22-cv-01470-MWF-JDE Document 28 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2of2 Page ID#:32

No party filed a timely file any objection to the Report or timely sought additional time in which to do so. Nonetheless, this Court has reviewed the Report de novo. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of “seriousness.” (Report at 10-18). Specifically, this Court is persuaded by the reasoning in United States v. Caso, 723 F.3d 215, 223 (D.C. Cir. 2013), and the reliance of the Ninth Circuit on the Sentencing Guidelines in United States v. Hernandez-Vasquez, 513 F.3d 908, 919 (9" Cir. 2008), albeit for different purposes. This Court accordingly accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows: (1) Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11) is DENIED; (2) the Petition (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED; and (3) Judgment shall be entered conditionally granting a writ of habeas corpus /and ordering Respondent to release Petitioner on the 30th day after judgment is entered, subject to the filing of any further charges and proceedings in the Southern District of Florida before that date. Zz

Dated: March 15, 2023 United States District Judge

Erik Lindsey Smith v. Felipe Martinez, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Erik Lindsey Smith v. Felipe Martinez (Erik Lindsey Smith v. Felipe Martinez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related