(HC) Bailey v. Warden

Opinion

BRENT EUGENE BAILEY, No. 2:23-cv-01087-KJM-EFB (HC) Petitioner, v. ORDER Respondent. Petitioner proceeds without counsel in this petition for writ of habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner alleges he is entitled to relief because there has been an intervening change in the interpretation of statutory law. See generally Pet., ECF No. 1. On April 24, 2024, the magistrate judge screened petitioner’s § 2241 petition and dismissed it after noting the Supreme Court in Jones “held the savings clause in § 2255(e) ‘does not permit a prisoner asserting an intervening change in statutory interpretation to circumvent AEDPA’s restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a § 2241 petition.’” Order at 3, ECF No. 6 (quoting Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 471 (2023). The magistrate judge granted petitioner “leave to file an amended petition attempting to cure the defect identified” in the order within 30 days. Id. ///// Petitioner did not file an amended petition. On June 17, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. F.&R., ECF No. 6. Petitioner has filed a “motion for reconsideration” of the magistrate judge’s order dismissing the petition, Mot., ECF No. 8, as well as objections to the findings and recommendations, Objs., ECF No. 9. The court considers the motion for reconsideration first. A party may seek reconsideration of a magistrate judge’s ruling under Local Rule 303(c). “The standard that the assigned Judge shall use in all such requests is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’ standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). The court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s order and finds no clear errors or holdings contrary to law in the magistrate judge’s order. As the magistrate judge notes, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones forecloses petitioner’s petition. Petitioner’s argument that Jones is inapplicable because the petition was filed prior to the issuance of the decision is unpersuasive. See Swopes v. Ciolli, No. 22-16054, 2023 WL 5567196, at *1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023) (unpublished) (determining petitioner “had no right to file a § 2241 petition in the first instance” under Jones, even though Jones was issued after petitioner filed an appeal); see also Mason v. United States, No. 23-00245, 2024 WL 2271852, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 20, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 23-00245, 2024 WL 2923893 (D. Ariz. June 10, 2024) (similarly rejecting argument that Jones does not apply to petition filed before issuance of Jones). The court has also conducted a de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 17, 2024 (ECF No. 7), are adopted in full; 2. The motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 8) is DENIED; 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; and ] 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. DATED: August 23, 2024.

; CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE