(HC) Givens v. Warden at USP Atwater

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GREGORY LATRELL GIVENS, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0317 JLT EPG (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ) AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 WARDEN AT USP ATWATER, ) CLOSE THE CASE ) 15 Respondent. ) (Doc. 6) ) 16 )

17 Gregory Latrell Givens is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his confinement is unlawful because the United 19 States Marshal did not sign and file the return portion of Petitioner’s criminal judgment upon his 20 commitment as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(c). (See Doc. 1.) 21 The magistrate judge reviewed the petition and found that “Petitioner does not contest the 22 accuracy of the judgment,” and does not show “the alleged failure to execute the return has affected his 23 sentence or his rights.” (Doc. 6 at 3.) In addition, the magistrate judge observed: Petitioner has not 24 provided, and the Court has not found, any authority holding that failure to endorse and file the return 25 section of a defendant’s judgment and comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3621(c) renders the defendant’s 26 confinement unlawful and requires release from custody.” (Id.) On the other hand, the magistrate 27 judge noted that “circuit courts have found that the statute about endorsement of Returns does not 28 entitle Petitioner to be released from custody even if it is not followed.” (Id. at 3-4, citing Annamalai v. 1 || Warden, 760 F. App’x 843, 849 (11th Cir. 2019); Hall v. Loretto, 556 F. App’x 72, 73-74 (3d Cir. 2 || 2014) [modifications adopted].) Therefore, the magistrate judge found Petitioner fails “to state a 3 || cognizable federal habeas claim” and recommended the Court dismiss the petition. (/d. at 4.) 4 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any 5 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 6 at 4.) The Court advised Petition that the “failure to file 6 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (/d., 7 citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file objections 8 || and the time to do so has passed. 9 Although Petitioner did not file objections, Petitioner subsequently filed requests for judicial 10 || notice related to the lack of signature. (Doc. 7, 8.) These documents do not address the finding of thi 11 || magistrate judge that the lack of signature from a U.S. Marshal does not render Petitioner’s 12 confinement unlawful. (See id.) In addition, Petitioner’s subsequent filings to do not state a cognizal 13 || claim for habeas relief and do not establish he is entitled to proceed on the petition. 14 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 15 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 16 || by the record and proper analysis. Therefore, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 17, 2024 (Doc. 6) are ADOPTE] 18 in full. 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 |! Dated: _ June 5, 2024 ( LAW ph L. wan 24 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28